No Problem with Evil: Part 2

Does God exist? If so, is there evidence that provides good reason that a belief in God is rationally acceptable? The typical road of which natural theology has traversed seeks to affirm that a belief in God is reasonable. At the same time, antithetical to the work of natural theology stands its opponent, natural atheology. As each participant stands in the ring of philosophy of religion, the prize of proving or disproving the rationality of theistic belief eagerly awaits to be announced in the winner’s circle.

Alvin Plantinga’s book, God, Freedom, and Evil serves as an arena for debate, displaying natural theology and natural atheology and the major points of each. Regarding natural theology, Plantinga employs the ontological argument and for natural atheology, the author presents the problem of evil as its choice representative. Within natural atheology, the problem of evil presupposes that a belief in God is unreasonable and rationally unacceptable. John Mackie suggests the following set of propositions (A), charging the theistic belief with accepting a contradiction: (1) God is omnipotent; (2) God is wholly good; (3) yet evil exists.

The existence of evil is prevalent throughout the world. Its evidence is witnessed in the disease and poverty of a third world country, the white-collar crimes of suburban Americans, worn torn countries in Eastern Europe, and the natural disasters across the globe. The evidence of evil begs the atheological question, “Why does God permit it?” While the question awaits an answer explicating God’s reason for permitting evil in the world, Plantinga avoids providing a reason via theodicy, but rather a Free Will Theodicy or Free Will Defense suggesting at most what God’s reason might possibly be. Prior to launching his defense, Plantinga forms a necessary foundation concerning sets and propositions to depose Mackie’s claim that religious beliefs are “positively irrational.”

Irrationality according to Plantinga is defined by the denial or negation of members within a set resulting in an explicit contradiction that forms a contradictory set. His examples are beneficial in helping the novice philosopher understand formal contradictory sets by employing the simple laws of logic and adding new propositions to Mackie’s set (A) in an attempt to form a set of propositions that are contradictory or inconsistent.

Another building block of Plantinga’s defense demonstrates how a set can be inconsistent or contradictory apart from using the laws of logic when the propositions in such a set are necessarily true. Moreover, he suggests that neither truths of logic nor truths of mathematics encompass every contradiction; therefore, he advances causal and natural necessity and possibility propositions to further exhaust all avenues to understanding Mackie’s set (A) as an explicit contradiction. Plantinga determines that Mackie’s need to insert “additional premises” in order to make the contradiction more apparent requires two necessary truths that formulate an implicit rather than an explicit contradiction. The quandary in formulating a new set of propositions with necessary truths is that it forces Mackie to defend new propositions which attribute “goodness” to “a thing” that is “all knowing.” The problem here is obvious. If it were necessary that “a good thing” be omniscient then no humans would ever be considered “a good thing.” Further revisions to set (A) force humans to be omnipresent or wholly good in order to eliminate evil; things of which Mackie would concede are impossible for humans to do.

Plantinga’s conclusion proves that there are no necessarily true propositions that yield a formally contradictory set when added to Mackie’s set (A). Moreover, it appears that Plantinga has shifted the burden of eliminating evil from God to humans. If the atheolgian believes that God does not exist because of the existence of evil in the world, then who does the atheologian credit for the existence of goodness into the world? He cannot credit himself for the goodness that exists apart from personally accepting the responsibility for the problem of evil. His finitude forces him to look outside himself to a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good, but does such a being exist? The answer is yes. Such a being is necessary to the existence of goodness.

Plantinga’s Free Will Defense advocates that freedom is expressed by a person in so far as an individual has the freedom to choose or not to choose a certain thing. The actions by an individual are morally significant when defined by absolute moral truth, meaning a particular action may be right to abstain from and the same action wrong to indulge in. Significantly free individuals are those who are free with respect to morally significant action. A world apart from significantly free individuals is not better than a world with significantly free individuals. Significantly free people are created by God and God can not cause or determine them to make right choices. God can not create creatures who choose moral goodness apart from creating creatures who choose moral evil as expressed in Plantinga’s proposition (1) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good. This leads to the heart of the Free Will Defense, that it is not possible for God to not have created a universe containing moral good without also creating one that contained moral evil. If this is true, does God have a good reason for permitting evil into the world?

Although Plantinga forgoes providing a theodicy, a personal observation may be duly noted here. Perhaps the existence of moral evil is an act of God’s judgment against sin. That is, the existence of evil in the world is caused by man and not God. Concomitant to God permitting sin to enter into the world is the option to choose what is morally good. This allowance of free will by God is not an act of evil, but an act of love and goodness that gives support to Plantinga’s Free Will Defense. The presence of free will and evil constitutes the best possible world that God could have created, but such a statement is not appeasing to the atheologian. How can Mackie apart from presenting a formal contradictory set determine that God could have created another world, making it the best possible world void of evil? Surely Mackie doesn’t presume to be omniscient. He need not be, but only realize that the presence of evil allowed by God gives man good reason to believe that God is calling his creation to the best possible world (heaven) where neither moral or natural evil exists. Be that as it may, the central focus of Plantinga’s defense is the claim that an omnipotent God could not have actualized any possible world that he pleased apart from allowing humans to exist in a world that contained both good and evil. A world created absent of free will could never be the best. Perhaps for automatons, but not humans.

While other philosophers such as George Botterill agree with Mackie concerning this point, I believe the laws of logic prove otherwise. Botterill proposes that only an awareness of the possibility of evil constitute the best possible world apart from the existence of evil. How can one know what is morally right apart from the presence of moral evil? Suppose there was only moral evil in the best possible world and persons who abide in this world continue to commit morally evil acts thinking they were actually promoting a better good. One need only to look at Uganda were the pandemic of AIDS has given way to a belief that sex with a virgin child can cure a man from AIDS. Regardless of the world, the depravity of man will always render wrong actions.

Plantinga asserts the idea of transworld depravity where every significantly free individual would perform some wrong action if any world in which that person was morally free were actualized. For the theist, this view is palpable; however, the atheolgian begs to differ. Josh Rasmussen argues that given an infinite number of possible persons, the probability that everyone is transworld depraved is exceedingly low and if the total number of persons exceeds the total number of personal moral choices, God could indeed create a world void of evil. This argument seems to be far reaching and impossible considering the need to traverse infinity in order to calculate all possible persons and moral choices. Moreover, the mere existence of one evil choice is sufficient regardless the infinite number of persons in order for evil to exist. The existence of a choice only exists because it has been exercised and therefore has made itself known.

Whether or not the probability of all persons being transworld depraved is exceedingly low, Plantinga needs only to prove the possibility of its existence. Plantinga’s work is invaluable to the philosophy of religion. It spurs debate within the field of apologetics that casts doubt for the atheolgian, allowing his evidence via the laws of logic to show that the existence of God is compatible with the existence of evil.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alvin Plantinga. God, Freedom, & Evil. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's, 1977.

George Botterill. "Falsification and the Existence of God: A Discussion of Plantinga's Free Will Defence." Review of The Nature of Necessity,Philosophical Quarterly 27, no. 107 (April 1977): 114-134.

Josh Rasmussen. "On creating worlds without evil - given divine counterfactual knowledge." Review of God, Freedom, and Evil, Cambridge Journal 40, no. 4 (December 2004): 457-470.

Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, & Evil (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's, 1977), 12.

Ibid, 28

Ibid, 12

Ibid, 16

Ibid, 23

Ibid, 30

Ibid, 31

George Botterill, "Falsification and the Existence of God: A Discussion of Plantinga's Free Will Defence," review of The Nature of Necessity, Philosophical Quarterly 27, no. 107 (April 1977): 122.

Josh Rasmussen, "On creating worlds without evil - given divine counterfactual knowledge," review of God, Freedom, and Evil, Cambridge Journal 40, no. 4 (December 2004): Abstract.

Roe vs. Wade

In a recent movie titled, "Come What May" there is a debate whether or not overturning Roe vs. Wade is even plausible. Students from Patrick Henry College set out to construct a viable defense not only to win the Moot Court Championship, but returning for another semester is contingent on winning since the mother of one of the students (herself a lawyer) is requiring that her son win the competition; otherwise she's not paying next semesters tuition. The young man initially opts to take the easy road and wants to fight for parental notification as a means of slowing down abortions within the United States; however, he eventually decides to offer an argument to overthrow Roe vs. Wade.

The argument he offers is within the ruling itself. Abortion kills what is alive within the woman, otherwise it wouldn't be killing. Of course the issue of viability comes into question and the original court ruling allowed this argument to determine the final outcome. If viability determines whether or not killing is justified, one only has to place themselves in a different environment (let's say Antarctica) without any protection from the elements and according to Roe vs. Wade, killing any human being because of the absence of viability is justified. Location is never a precursor in determining whether or not killing is justifiable against any who are unable to consistently and effectively demonstrate viability and neither does it define what is and is not human.

I think, like many other issues, we humans complicate matters more than what is ever warranted because we search so hard to provide a defense for what are selfishness desires. Roe vs. Wade is no exception. Could we just look at our cultural norms for an answer? Besides, our cultural norms were created by us who live within the culture. If we created these norms then there must be some logic in continuing to uphold them and pass them on to the generations to come. Right?

I only offer one cultural norm as a guide to directing our thinking regarding Roe vs. Wade when answering the question of whether or not the act of abortion is actually killing a living thing, specifically an unborn human child.

Have you ever had a friend, coworker, or family member tell you that they had just discovered they were pregnant? They decided to share this news with someone special. Not just any bystander, but you, a person they admire, appreciate, love, and or they trust. And sometimes, well let's just say the majority of the time, after the news is shared, someone suggests having a party, or going out to celebrate the good news. Everyone is excited and the news begins to travel fast and the next thing you know, friends are texting or calling each other, blogs are being written all for the purpose of sharing the news.

But wait a minute. Why would we as a civilized society create such a cultural norm to celebrate the news of hearing that something that was not alive at all has just been discovered in the uterus of a female friend, colleague, or coworker? Much less something that was alive and growing that wasn't human at all. How preposterous and insane!

You see we humans, by nature have been doing what's natural all along without realizing it. We've been celebrating the news of pregnancy because its news of a new life coming into existence. News of a new human life. Our desire to communicate expresses life itself. Even pregnant teens who never planned for pregnancy want to shout the news from the mountain top. The desire to share the news, communicate the news, and celebrate the news validates the existence of life. We as humans don't do those kinds of things that have become the norm in our culture because someone has discovered they have a dead non human "thing" growing inside of them.

Celebrate Life!

No Problem with Evil: Part 1

The Problem of Evil has posed a dilemma for many a person, in my opinion, because one begins their analysis by asking the wrong question, "Why does an all loving God allow evil and suffering to exist in the world?"

This question assumes that mankind is deserving of goodness and not evil. This question absolves mankind from accepting any responsibility regarding the ongoing evil that occurs in this world. Furthermore, the question deems God as Omnipotent, being able to do something about the evil (not allowing it) while simultaneously blaming Him for not doing anything about it. Perhaps one is angry at God because He can do something about it, but yet chooses to do nothing about it, or to allow it as He sees fit at certain times and not at other times. If this is the case, then one must suggest that it is also God's prerogative to do as He pleases regarding the matter of Evil.

But still I have not offered the question that should be asked. The one that I believe corrects our thinking regarding the Problem of Evil. Instead of asking, "Why does an all loving God allow evil and suffering to exist in the world?" we should begin to ask ourselves, "Why does God allow goodness to enter into a world that is comprised of evil people?"

The latter question acknowledges that goodness does exist in the world and not evil alone. We celebrate the life of a newborn child, a cure from a disease, material possessions, friendship, and love. Where does this goodness come from? Is it mankind who creates such things, as it were, taking lemons and making lemonade? If we embrace mankind as the author of goodness, we must also accuse mankind for the perpetuation and existence of evil.

We understand that there is a dualism at work here, but is it necessary? Is it necessary for evil to exist with goodness? One needs only to turn to the Laws of Nature to answer this question... (Yes). So is a world without evil really a better world at all? No Evil = No Goodness. No Evil + No Goodness = No Existence

William Dembski/Niall Shanks Intelligent Design Debate

The William Dembski and Niall Shanks debate on Intelligent Design was mutually cordial, refreshing, and enlightening. Each debater is highly regarded as an expert in his respected field and offered an apologetic from a variety of arguments from science, mathematics, history, and philosophy. Neither debater pulled any punches to get an upper hand, but the arguments given by Bill Dembski proved more reasonable and certainly worth the attention of the scientific community.

Dembski began the debate by distinguishing between Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID). His distinction was necessary in light of the evolutionary science claim that ID is nothing more than window dressing for religion. While Creation is defined as the doctrine of being, Creationism attempts to harmonize Scripture with science. Design focuses on taking pre-existent stuff and creating it into new things. ID is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. In this regard, ID is a lot like forensic science, archaeology, and SETI.

Dembski was honest in the debate and did not attempt to cut the legs out from under evolutionary science by pleading a case for all things that have an appearance of design to be labeled as ID, unlike Richard Dawkins who is looking to science to underwrite evolutionary theory. Much like William Paley, Dembski argued that proponents of ID are arguing from the data of nature for an Intelligent Designer. Opponents like Niall Shanks contend that there are other options for biological complexity other than the Christian God. Evolutionary theorists are handicapped by their dependency of evolutionary theory and its inability to look forward as a science. Natural selection is an instant gratification to the evolutionary process that depends on imminent resources to survive and reproduce. Dembski’s analogy of a pogo stick as a means to reach the top of Mount Everest helps to understand how a gradual process like natural selection is deficient in explaining the kind of engineering that scientists have discovered inside cells.

Niall Shanks concluded from the principle metaphor of the body as a machine that just because machines have designers and the body is a machine does not mean the body was created by a designer. It seems to me that a more complex machine like the human body would require much greater design by a great designer than a supercomputer or Jarvik-7. To his credit, Shanks admits that his metaphor does not rule out ID; however, he only considers it to be a great theory. His attempt to prove in the Viking picture from Mars that not all things have an appearance of design are designed was quite a stretch. The difference between that picture (no designer) and the one of Mount Rushmore (designer) was complexity, a key component to ID. Shanks was right in saying that we must be self critical about science, religion, and theology. Parameters are necessary for good practice and should consist of qualifiers that isolate specific criteria to explain results; otherwise, the end result will only be what the scientist wants it to be.

Like many evolutionary scientists, Shanks wants to see the designer of ID or at least a “watermark” of evidence that uniquely identifies the designer. Could that “watermark” be evidenced in the unique fingerprints of each human being? Nevertheless, Shanks believes that we need to establish a chain of causation. His mock court trial attempted to establish a chain of causation to trace a replicated cell back to the murder suspect [Shanks]; however, causation itself is inadequate apart from knowing that Behe possessed the necessary resources to replicate the cell. One might understand Shanks conclusion as being logical, but how many of us have concluded that a certain thing was designed regardless of knowing who the designer was; what’s more, whether or not s/he possessed the resources to design it.

I agree with Dembski that Shanks’ “watermark” requirement is nothing more than a reason not to believe ID at all. What if, like Dembski asked, the info packed within the genome is even more packed? Furthermore, where did our understanding of design come from? Logic and reason help us deduce with great accuracy things that have been designed from those that have not. No one can deny that design exists regardless of what we know about the designer. Dembski is on point in seeking reliable criteria to discover signs of intelligence to rule out chance and necessity. According to Dembski, the Law of Conservation helps track the entry and exit points of specified complexity in a natural process. ID says nothing about the nature of intelligence, but that intelligence exists. This makes the burden lighter for ID because ID doesn’t need to show that every aspect of Biology is designed, but only that some are.

Shanks’ portrayal of the history of ID was interesting. Shanks wanted history to prove that the subject of ID has been ongoing and without resolve; a matter that may not be worth pursuing as much as proponents of ID would like to believe. If Newton and Leibnitz couldn't agree then perhaps Dembski and Shanks or any future debate on ID wouldn’t find any resolve either. Shanks attempted to soften the light on Darwin by portraying him as theist who turned agnostic. According to Shanks, at one point, Darwin did believe in a first cause, but later in his life he never could reconcile the problem of evil after his daughter Annie had died.

Dembski’s argument against the life of Darwin was somewhat cursory, only mentioning that he believed Darwin was indeed more than an agnostic at the end of his life. Dembski’s life history of being reared in a home that tipped its hat to evolutionary theory was surprising. One must certainly ask, “Why a change of heart Bill?” I thought that Dembski’s statement that evolution shows design, but that no designer is necessary is one of the most reasonable and truthful statements he gave. The belief of original sin and man’s desire to be like God can not be isolated from his statement. If evolutionary theory removes purpose and meaning, then man has fulfilled his desire to become like God.

The Direction of the World

As a member of a society, do you make it a point to know what is going around you? Whether we care or not about the political agenda, gay rights, or scientific discovery, it would behoove us to keep one ear to the door. Jim Elliot once said, "Wherever you are, be all there. Live to the hilt every situation you believe to be the will of God." Without question, we have been called to be a light on a hill and not just a spectator watching from the sideline.

One of the most talked about subjects in society today is Intelligent Design (ID). Throughout the country on practically any given day one can open his/her local newspaper and read about the controversy between ID and Darwinism being taught in the Public School System. The center of this controversy resides in Dover, Pennsylvania. The public school board in Dover voted previously to allow ID to be taught alongside Darwinism as another option to explain creation. Currently, those board members have been removed and replaced. The school district is moving towards disallowing ID to be taught alongside Darwinism, thus wiping out a plausible explanation in favor of an Intelligent Designer.

Many antagonists of ID purport that ID is a smokescreen for Creationism although the two are not equal. ID does not make reference of a Christian God or any god at all; however Creationism does reference a Creator while contending that He is the God of the Bible. There are proponents of ID that are Atheists, Deists, and Theists. All believe that the existence of man and the universe hinges on Irreducible Complexity that leads one to conclude that a Creator exists and is the cause of our existence.

I've heard various opinions surrounding this controversial topic like ID is "bad science" or ID proposes a "junk faith" or it's a "smokescreen" for Creationism. Whatever happened to searching for the truth and relying upon evidence? Well, the problem with ID in the eyes of many Darwinists is it's unreliability or validity in providing Naturalistic answers through the scientific method. There are many well educated and highly respected scholars around the world who have studied ID with a critical eye and tested it by the scientific method of discovery. So what's the problem? Their conclusions did not provide naturalistic, but metaphysical answers. Not being able to provide an answer is not the problem, but the kind of answer that is being provided.

The minds of Copernicus, Galileo and as of late, Antony Flew all came to the realization that the complexity of the universe and human life ultimately returns to a creator. Darwin’s evidence from the Galapagos Islands was gathered over a meager 25 days. The Fossil record supports the explosion of life during the Cambrian Period and afterwards, but not before. The fact that our Universe itself is expanding is a testimony that creation has a beginning. Many will continue to disregard ID as a plausible answer to creation and continue to follow a theory on the basis that religion can not provide scientific answers. I agree. This is not Religion vs. Science, but Science vs. Science. Refusing to accept ID is not science, but ignorance.

Make it a point to know what’s happening around you. Take time and pick up the paper or another respected and dependable news source. Write a letter to a newspaper editor defending your beliefs. As a citizen of this country, you have that privilege today; however, silence today is the springboard for a new law tomorrow. You all have a voice, use it for the Glory of the Lord.