Parchment & Pen Blog

1. TL says:

   October 13, 2012 at 9:07 pm

   Like or Dislike: 0

   Thank you , Michael. I’m going to use some of these in my Sunday a.m. Bible study class. The problem of evil is a recurring question from time to time. This is quite helpful.
2. C Michael Patton says:

   October 13, 2012 at 9:24 pm

   Like or Dislike: 0

   Great! I added a bit more so that there was more context to this post.
3. Richard Worden Wilson says:

   October 14, 2012 at 2:11 am

   Like or Dislike: 3

   HeyHey, C. Michael,
   More knowledgeable, perceptive, wise, and recognized Open Theists would surely not respond the way I am, since your perspectives and straw man arguments are predestined and future reasoning about this issues can’t be changed, but really !!!! Have you actually read the main proponents of Open Theism? None that I have read say that God is NOT all powerful. That is not their belief. In all probability, most of them would agree whole heartedly with your “Conclusion: God has good reasons for allowing suffering and evil to exist. He uses suffering and evil to accomplish a greater good, even if we never know exactly what that reason is.”

   So, just what are you trying to prove by the straw man thing? That Open Theists are not responding as Christians and can’t or don’t come to Christian conclusions?

   All the best to all in Christ, Richard
4. Will says:

   October 14, 2012 at 2:16 am

   Like or Dislike: 1

   An Atheist would not, in fact, agree with the first or second premise. Also, the atheist does not have to borrow from theism to observe suffering, evil or pain. These things are observable by all with no reliance on the supernatural.

   The only thing you can really say of the Atheist in the context of this article is premise 3: that suffering and evil are observable in the world. As the Atheist posits no additional claims AS an Atheist; there is nothing else to say.

   A human, theist OR atheist may give several explanations for suffering and evil in the world, none relying on supernatural intervention OR passivity. The thesis of this article can not be universalized outside the theist world view, specifically one where a shepherd-like god is supposed to exist and actually monitor and care for the faithful. Outside this walled garden of thought, the very existence of this logic is a vapor. One suggestion might be to leave atheism out of your comparison, so as to not draw attention to this problem.
5. Against Open Theism says:

   October 14, 2012 at 3:43 am

   Like or Dislike: 0

   @Richard:
   No, open theists are, in fact, saying that God is not all powerful. They say that since God has given humans libertarian free will, it is logically impossible for this god to be able to even know how these actions will turn out. He can only make “probabilistic predictions” (John Sanders’ term) of these actions. The future is partially “open” and not a “thing” that can be known, since it is logically impossible for their god to even know how these actions will turn out if it truly libertarian free will. Their god is truly a “grand chess master” (Greg Boyd and other open theists use this term), who is just a glorified human created in the image of open theists and not truly the transcendent God of Scripture.

   Jonathan Edwards is right in saying that these people are only pretending to believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God:
   http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/edwards-on-foreknowledge-part-i/
   http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/edwards-on-foreknowledge-part-ii/
6. C Michael Patton says:

   October 14, 2012 at 8:55 am

   Like or Dislike: 0

   Richard, I am open to being corrected (excuse the pun), but I am pretty sure that the way that they would describe it is that God has self-limited his power due to the rules of engagement. Therefore, in this sense, he is not all powerful. He is as powerful and knowledgable as he can be in a world with freedom of the will. And yes, I have read all the magisterial open theists.
7. C Michael Patton says:

   October 14, 2012 at 8:58 am

   Like or Dislike: 1

   Will,

   That does not make any sense. To recognize something is to affirm its existence. In order to affirm the existence of good and evil, there must be a borrowing from the Christian worldview.

   The thesis of this article are based on the premise. The universalization of the premise is dependant on the legitimacy of the answers given. I agree that an atheist cannot work within this structure. That is the point.
8. anonymous says:

   October 14, 2012 at 9:19 am

   Like or Dislike: 0

   “But this does not make it a slam dunk. Intellect is one thing. Emotions are another.”

   …6a And without faith it is impossible to please God Heb 11:6a

   We realize this: that in the last days some will be always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Tim 3 1,7

   But we have the Spirit of truth John 14: 17 Whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.1 John 5. 4

   Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval. By faith Enoch obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God. Heb 11:1

   We ought always to give thanks to God because our faith is greatly enlarged; our perseverance and faith in the midst of all persecutions and afflictions is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that we will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed we are suffering. 2 Thess 1

   The proof of our faith more precious than gold found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ1 Pet 1:7

   So, building ourselves up on our most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, we keep ourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. Jude 1:20-21

   Amen !!!
9. Will says:

   October 14, 2012 at 10:25 am

   Like or Dislike: 0

   C Michael
   I reject your position that the concept of evil and suffering (or goodness) can only exist within a Christian world view. You have offered no support for the claim and should understand how insulting and myopic it is to non Christians and non theists.

   Further if you construct a false structure from your premises that does not universalize to the Atheist, yet you include the atheist in your article, that says more about you and your premises than it says about atheists.

   You posit that the Atheist would draw conclusions about the existence of evil in the world based on the given 3 premises, yet the Atheist would reject two of them and in fact NOT reach the conclusion you Have ascribed to them. Further, the atheist does not conclude that there is no god BECAUSE of the problem of evil and suffering in the world, they default to the position in the absence of acceptable evidence to the claim of a supernatural world. The existence of evil and suffering in the world is a separate (and more important IMHO) issue.
10. TL says:

    October 14, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    Like or Dislike: 1

    “The thesis of this article are based on the premise. The universalization of the premise is dependant on the legitimacy of the answers given. I agree that an atheist cannot work within this structure. That is the point.”

    Frankly, I agree with this logic. How can those who claim that God does not exist, rationally discuss His existence and involvement in anything. Their only reason for engagement is to cause problems among those who believe, and in the end their goal is to attempt at disproving God in any way possible.
11. C Michael Patton says:

    October 14, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Like or Dislike: 2

    Will,

    I don’t know how this could have been so insulting to you. I am sorry for this, but any time someone says someone else is wrong and makes their arguments, I am sure that emotions will get a bit high on the one being criticized. I have made the conclusion in many teachings that atheism is the most irrational of all worldviews, and this charge of insult does not change my conclusion or wording. I am trying to use non-emotion language without belittling, but when I come to such conclusions, the arguments will either hold their ground or fail to the readers.

    This is a discussion of the problem of evil from the Christian standpoint. Therefore, the syllogism is given in such a way. I would love to see how you would construct the problem of evil from the atheists standpoint. But at least I give the concession that it is a problem. The various ways of solving it are broadly philosophical, not simply the Christians’ way of solving it.

    What I have done is present a case in a world where evil is evident to all and many Christians are struggling to find out how to deal with it.

    I think I gave respect to atheism in that I said that the illogic of saying evil exist, but there is no God (which is a formal absurdity and I have no reason to give credit otherwise), does not necessarily prove atheism wrong, it just shows how any atheist who argues against Christianity based on the problem of evil has to borrow from a theistic (not necessarily Christian) worldview in order to make such an argument.

    If you don’t use this argument against Christianity, I applaud you. However, this was written primarily to Christians to encourage them 1) to read my book when it comes out! and 2) to show them that Christianity presents the best possible solution for the problem of evil.
12. C Michael Patton says:

    October 14, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    Like or Dislike: 1

    Besides this, from what I understand, most academic atheists no longer use this argument as Plantinga has put it to rest. Though there could still be some out there. But I don’t know of any theist who don’t use the atheists believe in evil (those who do actually believe that it is real and universally definable) as an arguement that, at least, the atheist is not being consistant as they borrow from a Christian worldview.

    I am going to have to jump out of this discussion as I have to finish this book! Deadlines…
13. Richard Worden Wilson says:

    October 15, 2012 at 2:06 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    C. Michael said: “Richard, I am open to being corrected (excuse the pun), but I am pretty sure that the way that they would describe it is that God has self-limited his power due to the rules of engagement. Therefore, in this sense, he is not all powerful. He is as powerful and knowledgable as he can be in a world with freedom of the will. And yes, I have read all the magisterial open theists.”
    Michael,
    Thanks for thinking that you are open to change. 8>) I pray I am also.
    Right, open theists tend to say that our all powerful God has arranged his creation in a way that limits His willingness to act in ways that override the free will of active agents He has created. It is because He is All Powerful that He has arranged things the way they are, not having real existence until they unfold the way they do in time, NOW. So, He is not seen by open theists as not being all powerful, but seen as not able to know things that haven’t happened yet. He is seen by open theists as being fully able and powerful enough to do what he wants to do, now and any time that actually exists in which it is possible to do things, but not as powerful enough to do things that aren’t possible to do, like know futures that don’t yet exist, since that would be in contradiction to the way He has actually created the universe. In other words, God is seen by open theists as not any more powerful than He is, and only as powerful to act as He is able to be in the universe the way He has created it–which is really as all powerful as it is possible for God to be–able to do whatever He has decided to do. Self-limiting may be the most powerful form of power. You surely acknowledge that God doesn’t do everything He could do, but I wouldn’t mis-characterize your beliefs as being among those who say “God is not all powerful.” You shouldn’t mis-characterize open theists as saying that either.
    PS: “magisterial open theists” hey, that’s funny!
14. nathan says:

    October 15, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    thanks michael this very subject is a difficult one for many even those of differant faiths i love the way you flow with the logic angain thank you for not shying from the difficult theological questions it helps people like my self to grow deeper in the faith
15. TrueHope says:

    October 15, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Hi Michael,

    Some people talk about evil and suffering as though they are the same thing, but they are not. Maybe there can be a slight variation of (1) (the sadotheistic response) by saying that God is good but wants to maximize suffering in order to maximize His glory. It’s a mix of (1) and (5).

    The logic goes like this: human suffering is used to bring glory to God, and God does whatever it takes to bring glory to Himself; therefore, God maximizes human suffering.

    Whatever lack of misery in this world is used to bring about more misery in world to come for unbelievers, and thus it brings more glory to God.

    Furthermore, God could have ordained that everyone would go to hell after they die, but that brings about less misery than ordaining a few would enter heaven and the majority to would go to hell, because misery loves company. The misery endured by the reprobate would be much more bearable if everybody else is also in hell.

    As Jesus said, “I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt 8:11-12 ESV).

    Therefore, God had to send His Son to die for those few people, in order to make hell much more miserable for everybody else. The universal sum of human misery would be maximized, and thus the glory of God would be maximized.

    Unlike (1) and (4), such an argument would not be be borrowing God’s morality in order to judge God. It still affirms the goodness of God, while recognizing that God views His own glory as being important than alleviating human suffering (which no Christian would deny). However, unlike (5), it does not see suffering as an “evil” that is used to bring about a greater good (for reasons we may not know). Rather, God actively seeks to maximize suffering, and His increased glory is stated explicitly as the…
16. mean says:

    October 16, 2012 at 1:28 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Will’s objection does make some sense.

    I don’t believe that an absolute moral standard can possibly exist in an atheistic worldview. Any moral judgment in an atheistic world must ultimately and necessarily be subjective, relative and utilitarian.

    This is not to say that there can be no ideal. But an ideal exists only if it is perceived to foster satisfaction of the individual and/or ensure the fitness of the collective. Once adopted by the collective, individuals are then conditioned to operate by these social constructs, believing that somehow these ideals are larger than themselves.

    As such, there is in fact a legitimate standard with which the atheists recognize good and evil (at least perceived good and evil) — and their judgments are often valid — without borrowing from Judeo-Christian worldview…
17. Francis says:

    October 16, 2012 at 1:35 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Will’s objection does make some sense.

    I don’t believe that an absolute moral standard can possibly exist in an worldview without God. Any moral judgment in such a world must ultimately and necessarily be subjective, relative and utilitarian.

    This is not to say that there can be no ideal. But an ideal exists only if it is perceived to foster satisfaction of the individual and/or ensure the fitness of the collective. Once adopted by the collective, individuals are then conditioned to operate by these social constructs, believing that somehow these ideals are larger than themselves.

    As such, there is in fact a legitimate standard with which the atheists recognize good and evil (at least perceived good and evil) — and their judgments are often valid — without taking anything from our Judeo-Christian worldview…
18. Dan says:

    October 16, 2012 at 7:21 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I’m pretty sure that most discussions about the possibility or impossibility of the existence of evil in an atheistic worldview suffer from a failure to properly define terms.

    If you define “evil” as some sort of departure from a God-ordained norm for the universe, then of course you can’t believe in evil without believing in God. But this is a trivial truth. It’s a circular argument.

    Atheists (and many others) do not define evil in this way, for obvious reasons. They believe in evil as a subjective experience of human beings rather than as something defined arbitrarily by God’s personality or will. We believe in evil because we experience certain things as evil, many of them universally. While a vast simplification, this is the gist of a non-theistic view of evil. It’s intuitive and experiential at its core rather than trying to point to some reality outside of humanity. But we still call it evil. What else would you call it?

    If we can all understand that we’re defining our terms differently, maybe we can stop talking past each other.
19. Rick says:

    October 16, 2012 at 10:58 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Dan, that’s exactly the point. For an atheist, there IS NO good and evil, only personal opinions. There’s nothing inherently right or wrong with any action. If a whole chunk of society is OK with, say, killing millions of human beings because they belong to a certain ethnic group, who am I to say they’re “wrong”?

    Yes, every such discussion ends up in Hitler, sorry for that, but it fits. No, people didn’t kill Jews because they were atheists (I guess most were not). What I’m saying is: people will do the most horrible things thinking they’re doing some good (their opinion). An atheist might see that and be horrified, but He cannot condemn it on any ground except his own opinion.

    One can use the argument that what’s bad for the species survival, or something of the sort, is to be labeled “wrong”. But that line of thinking would end up in, say, suspending care for our weaker citizens in favor of the young and strong. Sparta operated in such a fashion when they’d kill babies with disabilities. Well, I think Spartans were positively wrong. They thought they were right. Who says what is what?

    In this aspect (good and bad are subjective), atheism is an acceptable world view, it’s not logically impossible. It’s also a pretty scary one, where might makes right.
20. John I. says:

    October 16, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    First, it is incorrect to put “Christian Response” in opposition to “Open Theism”, because Open Theism is one of the possible Christian response. Second, there are more possible Christian responses than the one proposed.

    Third, the Open Theism position is incorrectly presented, so much so that the presentation amounts to a caricature.

    Open Theism is not necessarily a position wherein God self-limits. Even if it were, it would not be correct to use “cannot” rather than “will not” or “does not”. Moreover, the presentation of self-limitation is very flat, unlike the actual beliefs.
21. C Michael Patton says:

    October 16, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I am not sure that their are enough magisterial “open theists” to say one could definitely misrepresent them. There are certainly not many who formerly identify with Open Theism on a conscious level. So the handle, open theism, can always be misrepresented since there is no one view here. And it provided an nice, accurate enough, handle that works for the structure of the syllogism. But in God “self limitation” he cannot according to the rules of engagement. I did qualify it as self-limitation, so I fail to see the problem with cannot. As well, it is not a christian response as it moves into an unorthodox sycritism. This does not mean that open theists (or any who take this position on evil), but what it does mean is that this is not a Christian response which fits into any scheme of othodox Christianity. If we don’t go there with it, then it will become increasingly difficult to speak of the “Christian” answer to anything.

    Hope that helps. The problem could have come in the area of my failure to write clearly.
22. Ryan says:

    October 16, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Rick,

    I think you’re missing something crucial about the nature of moral propositions. There’s a reason the majority of moral philosophers reject your position.

    Moral philosophers often use the word normativity to refer to the kind of authority that moral propositions have, or that operational definitions in psychology have, such as maturity, well-adjustment, etc. The word usually refers to an ideal standard or model. Moral statements aren’t like facts or scientific laws; they can be broken.

    Showing that something is a human invention or a personal preference isn’t a way of showing it isn’t real. Moral values exist in the only way rules of conduct can exist. People believe in and regulate their behavior in accordance with them. And the standard by which we judge right/wrong isn’t arbitrary. It’s based on what produces flourishing/well-being. You can’t reduce this moral view to utilitarianism or consequentialism, because outcomes/utility aren’t the only determinants of well-being. Certain character traits have been objectively shown to lead to well-being/flourishing. We wouldn’t get very far without treating one another the way we want to be treated. Civil society, cooperation and solidarity wouldn’t be possible, and on the whole most people’s lives would be worse.

    It won’t do to say: “Why should we care about others? Who says?” The fact is, we do, it’s innate, it helps produce our well-being/flourishing, and to ask why we should aim for well-being is absurd.

    Plato’s Euthypro dilemma comes to mind here: Is the good good because God loves it, or does God love it because it is good? God doesn’t advance our understanding of the source of ethics. For God’s judgment to be just/non-arbitrary, it needs to track independent reasons. If it doesn’t, then it’s arbitrary and we have no business calling it good/bad. Since a being like God would only aim for our good, if we can discover what’s good for us, we can know the moral without…
23. TrueHope says:

    October 16, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    The problem of evil and the problem of suffering are really two separate problems, even though the Christian worldview has a satisfying logical explanation for both. It’s best not to conflate evil with suffering.

    Evil = privation of good
    Suffering = pain and distress

    In an atheistic worldview, there is no objective good and evil, but there is still suffering, for their are scientific instruments (such as functional MRIs) that can objectively measure physical pain as well as distress based on brain patterns. Atheists can still talk about “right” and “wrong”, if they define “right” not in terms of actions that are “good”, but rather as actions that reduce “suffering”.

    As a side note, if we’re discussing various responses for the problem of evil and the problem of suffering, and we make a decision to include non-Christian responses, we should make it clear that these five are not the only responses or even the most popular ones. For instance, one popular response not mentioned here, embraced by 2 billion people worldwide, would be the Islamic response to the problem of evil and the problem of suffering.
24. Francis says:

    October 16, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Rick,

    Moral standards according to atheists aren’t merely personal opinions. Well, to a certain extent they are. But as they often argue, so are everyone else’s. Despite our insistence of having an absolute moral compass that is Christ, the way in which we apply our moral standards (i.e. how we interpret and execute the Biblical principles) are often marred by fundamental corruption of the human condition, as evidenced by church history.

    On the other hand, these moral judgments, or “personal opinions”, are always limited, guided and conditioned by a “normative ideal” of the society in which we live, which are allowed to perpetuate due to a perceived benefit in fostering satisfaction of the individual, ensuring the fitness of the collective, or both. These ideals are often marketed as being larger than the individuals themselves and therefore worth honoring. It is by these standards that much is being judged as being “right” vs. “wrong” without having to appeal to the Divine.

    This approach may take away the absolute certainty one places in the moral code of his day (if he is willing to reason through it), but that doesn’t render the code any less meaningful or useful. Members of the society still need to abide by these standards although questions and challenges are allowed to a limited degree. It imbues a sense of fluidity that allows for progress and evolution (albeit not always for the better). Ans some may argue that, in a pluralistic society, it is a drive for improvement and a guard against tyranny of the majority.
25. Will says:

    October 17, 2012 at 12:30 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Michael,

    The insulting aspect, to be specific, is to claim that a theistic / christian world view is required to recognise sufferning and evil. As if Atheists, Native Peoples, Buhddists, hindu etc are incapable to internalizing morality.

    It is worth noting that Evil, as a word, comes from a prechristian germanic pre-nom. Amongst the various ways Evil / good are considered as concepts, the Christian one, ie “Evil is an absence of god or a rejection of god” (or variant) is a minority. A major section of the discipline of philosophy is ethics and morality, a discipline that began outside of and prior to a Judao-Christian ethic.

    Claiming Evil or Good or Suffering as Christian concepts does violence to reality.
26. Michael T. says:

    October 17, 2012 at 1:16 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    CMP,

    I am no Open Theist, but I have to point out that this statement is just logically flawed.

    “I am pretty sure that the way that they would describe it is that God has self-limited his power due to the rules of engagement. Therefore, in this sense, he is not all powerful.”

    How does one choosing not to use a power that they have make them less powerful?? I have the power to buy a gun a shoot people – the fact that I choose not to doesn’t make me less powerful. My boss has the right and power to fire me for no reason whatsoever. The fact that she chooses not to doesn’t seem to me to make her less powerful. God has the ability to destroy the entire universe with just a thought, the fact that He chooses not to exercise this power again doesn’t make Him less powerful.

    I also think one question that is important to ask in the Open Theism is does omnipotence mean that God can do things which are logically contradictory (i.e. create a married bachelor or a square circle)? If one answers yes then it seems that those who argue that theism is incoherent have a good point. If one answer no then one simply can’t dismiss open theism on the grounds that it robs God of his omnipotence and instead must engage in a much more lengthy discussion about the nature of time, Middle Knowledge, and the nature of Free Will. I believe that Open Theism is wrong, but I also think that many give it far too easy of a dismissal without exploring the underpinnings of it and testing its assumptions as well as your own assumptions about some rather heady matters.
27. John I. says:

    October 17, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Re: “The insulting aspect, to be specific, is to claim that a theistic / christian world view is required to recognise suffering and evil. ”

    I agree. Any philosopher or theologian that has grappled with the views of atheists on evil acknowledges in their writings that one cannot dismiss them too easily.

    ***

    Re open theism as unorthodox

    Open theists accept the various creeds, the divinity of Christ, the various approaches to salvation and justification, omnipotence, omniscience, God is love, inerrancy, etc. They are fully orthodox in all the ways that count. In the esoteric realm of philosophy, they disagree with Calvinists over which worlds are possible worlds, whether truth is bivalent at all times, and over the definition of “omnipotence”. Open theists will agree with any verse in the Bible that refers to or implies God’s omnipotence, and they would agree that God can do anything that is possible for any conceivable being to do.

    The restrictive definition of “orthodox” would put Catholics outside of orthodoxy (because of their views on salvation, justification, works, original sin), put Arminians outside of orthodoxy (because their view of ominipotence is similar to open theists in terms of the essential difference from Calvinist views), put pentacostals outside orthodoxy (because of views on the Holy Spirit), etc.

    Consequently the schema used is unnecessarily narrow and so unhelpful. Given the acknowledgement that there is no one view among open theists, it is important to note that and to indicate why the simplistic structure is being used. The structure is allegedly needed for the overall argument to work, but I question and doubt both its usefulness and benefit given that it misrepresents the core of the open theist argument.

    The current varieties of open theism differ significantly in how they conceptualize the future as being in some sense “open”.

    Lastly, if the terms of the syllogism are kept consistent, they are not…
28. Rick says:

    October 17, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Ryan,

    I agree with you that “Showing that something is a human invention or a personal preference isn’t a way of showing it isn’t real”. That’s how I conclude my last post. I just don’t like where it takes us to.

    I appreciate your explanation of good defined as what brings well-being, made things clearer to me. Of course, an atheist does have to reduce everything to natural laws at the core, so you are, in the end, still talking about consequentialism: Survival? Reproduction? Whatever goal mother nature put in our genes.

    So man can have morals without God, you are correct there, we just define morals differently.

    Oh, I don’t like a “no God” good because:

    Christians HAVE an absolute goal to aspire to (God), but they see skewed and are twisted, so that goal is not reached even if they try to. Francis talked a bit about that.

    Others SET a goal to aspire to (say, well-being), but that goal is defined by skewed and twisted (nah, not fully evolved) people, on top of that they see skewed and are twisted, so that goal (already a moving target) is not reached even if they try to.

    In short, we are too flawed to be setting our own goals.

    A Christian has an absolute standard outside of himself, It’s far, yes, unreachable, like every perfect thing should be. To simplify things for us, God put all that is good into one person, and gave us this person. But that’s another matter…
29. John I. says:

    October 17, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Re “Showing that something is a human invention or a personal preference isn’t a way of showing it isn’t real. ”

    True, but it is a way of showing that it is relative and lacks pan-human / universal objectivity and applicability. That is, the creation of morality by one human does not inherently supply means or reasons by which it could or should be applied to other humans.

    ****

    Re Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma: It has not been a problem for a long time for any seriously considered orthodox Christian theology. What is moral is defined by God’s inherent character. It is what God is, and so is neither outside God nor arbitrarily commanded by God.
30. John I. says:

    October 18, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    The original post is a play upon the Humean argument against theism, to wit*, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both willing and able? Why then is there evil?”

    The post then examines this argument by challenging each of the premises in turn (one premise being challenged twice), and then accepting all the premises. Each rejection of a premise is given a label, though it is not clear why the labels are either relevant or helpful. Moreover, if the understanding of a position is indicated by whether the holder of that position would recognize the description of it, then the label of “Open Theism” fails in that it does not describe a view that would be accepted by any known open theist.

    But the labels are not really important in that the overall argument does not stand or fall on their success. More problematic, however, is that the overall argument does not express the Humean position in its strongest forms, nor does it provide a “satisfactory” argument (scare quotes intended).

    To address the 2nd problem first, the answer provided seems to be essentially and substantially “God only knows!”, viz “God has good reasons for allowing suffering and evil to exist. . . . even if we never know exactly what that reason is.”

    The rubrik for determining if that answer is satisfactory is whether it is “the most rational response” to the “intellectual problem of evil”. However, merely putting the phrase into the form of an English proposition does not of necessity make it “rational” let alone “most rational”. But is “I don’t know” the most rational response? More rational than “God does not exist”? or than “perhaps God does not exist and I should abandon my faith?”, or than “God is malevolent”.

    Many people have found “I don’t know” to be a highly unsatisfactory answer and, indeed, to be sufficient grounds for…
31. Alex says:

    October 18, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Just to throw this in there, don’t forget the end of Romans 8:28 — everything God does is not for the good of all people, but for those who love him (if I may, the elect — or, election aside, Christians). Thus, evil can be said to be for two purposes that add up to one: to 1) increase the long-term (even if only eternal) joy of Christians, and 2) to pour out wrath upon the non-Christian.

    But, even this second end is for the Christian. As Romans 9 then says, God exercises damnation for non-Christians for the sake of the Christians, so that they may both see the mercy given to them as greater and witness the true holiness of God in wrath over sin.

    Thus, Romans 8 fits with 9; all things, whether mercy to the elect or judgement for the reprobate, work to glorify God and increase the joy of the elect.

    From here, as the post said — it’s intellectually simple enough, but emotionally? This is not an easy doctrine to get. And there’s a reason Paul begins ch. 9 with weeping. It’s not a doctrine to build up our pride, but to actually smash our pride to bits and lead us (among other things) to humble evangelism.

    Anyhow, I’ll back out now. Just some food for thought.
32. Ryan says:

    October 19, 2012 at 1:20 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    John said:

    “Re Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma: It has not been a problem for a long time for any seriously considered orthodox Christian theology. What is moral is defined by God’s inherent character…neither outside God nor arbitrarily commanded by God.”

    I don’t doubt that. A general lack of evidence, a view of scriptures as literature – not history, a plethora of anthropological, psychological and historical evidence, internal contradictions, prima facie evil biblical content, haven’t been a problem for those within the orthodox Christian school of thought. They are, however, still a problem for the rest of us. And most moral philosophers aren’t with you on that one, including many from your own camp. It’s very unusual to find a Divine Command moral theorist outside Christianity, and many within it reject it.

    Your response doesn’t solve the Euthypro dilemma. First, how on earth do you know God’s inherent character is good? Second, if God does exist and is all good, if he legislates according to his inherent character, then he legislates according to what’s good, since he himself is allegedly all-good. So, to the extent we can discover what our good is, we can – according to your view – discover morality. How is this not clear?

    And we don’t need “pan-human” universal objectivity/authority for ethics to have some kind of authority. This is a clear false dilemma. In my view, ethics has a different, weaker sort of authority, and just because you don’t like how weak it is and wish it to be stronger doesn’t make ethics on a naturalistic worldview completely subjective and solipsistic. I think you’re kidding yourself here. Think of the normative concept in psychology called ‘maturity.’ Outside a human context, this word has no meaning. We constructed it to describe a set of behaviors and character traits that tend to make humans well-adjusted, happy, cooperative, etc. It’s non-universalizability doesn’t endanger it’s factual…
33. Ryan says:

    October 19, 2012 at 1:22 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    …truth and authority. God does exist! He’s cutting me off for blaspheming…
34. Around the Blogosphere (10.19.2012) | Near Emmaus says:

    October 19, 2012 at 8:41 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    [...] C. Michael Patton: The Five Responses to the Problem of Evil [...]
35. Weekly Meanderings says:

    October 20, 2012 at 12:05 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    [...] « Outlets, outlets, outlets Weekly MeanderingsOctober 20, 2012 By scotmcknight Leave a CommentC. Michael Patton’s sketch of apologetics and the problem of evil.Patrick finishes up his series calling complementarianism [...]
36. John I. says:

    October 20, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Re Ryan’s comments

    1. Moral command theory, as relevant to the E. dilemma, is that morality is what it is simply and contingently because God commands it. Whatever is moral, gains its moral nature simply from being a command of his, and God could command the opposite action the next day and both commands would be moral. Hence morality is arbitrary, being simply contingent on the unrestricted commands of God.

    If morality is equivalent to God’s own nature, then it is not based simply/solely and contingently on his divine command.

    2. The Euthyphro dilemma is either that morality is a standard set but God and so within God and arbitrary (morality is what it is on the basis of what God commands–divine command theory), or that morality is objective and thus a standard outside of God and one that he must follow in order to be considered moral (and how can an allegedly omnipotent, sovereign God limited by something that defines standards for his behaviour?). Thus, either morality is arbitrary or God is subject to a standard outside of himself.

    If morality flows from his own nature, then it is not simply a changeable divine command that results from a choice by his will, but is rather eternal, objective and universal. Because the standard of morality is not outside God, the other horn is avoided as well.

    3. An objective morality is one that lies outside of ourselves and one that we must submit to or be immoral. Given that one cannot derive morality from ontology (unless you have made some spectacular philosophical breakthrough), then morality must be contingent on the subjective perceptions of sentient beings. No one being can privilege their morality over any other–unless there is some being to whom all others owe something. In the latter case, which Christians call God (the triune God), the standard for morality is universal, outside all human subjectivity, and owed by all humans
37. John I. says:

    October 20, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Re Ryan: “normative concept in psychology called ‘maturity.’ Outside a human context, this word has no meaning. We constructed it . . .”

    That’s what subjective means. So, thanks for proving my point.

    Further, my point about subjectivity did entail a limited authority for human norms. The point about limited authority is, however, that it is not objective.

    In addition, human “norms” sounds convincing as an idea–until one gets down to the nitty gritty of actually applying it. Then it breaks down. Take theft. Is it theft to steal bread when hungry? Is it theft for a government to take taxes? Is it theft (and can theft even happen) when private property is defined out of existence? (marxist communism)
38. Rebecca Trotter says:

    October 20, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I like the way that you have outlined the possibilities here. What I have come to believe is that we have misunderstood several things. First, we don’t have any reason to believe that God ever intended us to live in a world free from any pain. God declared creation “good”, not perfect. And given the normal functioning of our planet and bodies, a certain amount of suffering is inescapable. But given how we grow through pain, this should have been a net good.

    We humans are the real problem. And I think that what God is really looking for is for us to step up to the plate and take responsibility for changing whatever part we each play in the spread of pain and evil. To a certain extent he’s a bit like the parent of a drug addict who refuses to protect them from the consequences of their own actions. It’s not that he doesn’t care about our suffering or won’t do anything to mitigate it when it’s possible to do so without causing further harm. But ultimately it’s up to us to say “enough’s enough” and start majorly changing.

    Anyhow, I go into more detail about this line of thinking here:
    http://theupsidedownworld.com/2012/08/02/its-the-prime-directive/

    Good luck with the book!
39. Ryan says:

    October 20, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    You might enjoy semantic quibbling and pedantic analyses, but I don’t.

    Your characterization of Divine Command Theory (DCT) is wrong. DCT holds that morality is somehow dependent on God’s commands or nature. Of course, there are variants of DCT, but your view still falls within the range of views commonly called DCT.

    Second, your claim that morality flows from God’s nature and thus is not arbitrary but universal and binding still doesn’t escape common objections. How do you know God is all good? If he is all-good, why would he be compelled to only legislate by drawing from his omnibenevolence? Couldn’t he have other reasons that might be arbitrary and unknowable to us? What business do you still have calling it good? If such a being exists and issues commands, then they may be binding in the sense that he can sanction violators, but not binding in the sense that these commands are known to be objectively right beyond any doubt.

    I suspect you suffer from a lack of exposure to moral philosophical literature outside the Christian camp…maybe not. But you’ve narrowly defined what morality or normativity must look like to count as “objective” and universal, and then proceed to multiply entities beyond necessity, create a God we have little reason to believe exists, and then claim he’s responsible for the “objective” nature of morality.

    Rather than obstinately insist that moral “objectivity” can only be had if imposed by a divine will, consider my argument and the argument of the majority of Western analytic philosophers. They say, to put it briefly, morality can be “objective” in the sense that once something is shown to be good for us and produce flourishing/well-being, we have a compelling reason already to do it. What produces flourishing/well-being – while not fully known to us – is not subjective. Science has shown objectively what behaviors/traits tend to produce it.
40. Ryan says:

    October 20, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    And before you ask why we have reason to care about our own well-being or flourishing, reflect on how very stupid that sounds and how your own immediate experience and your observations of others overwhelming indicates that at core we all yearn for this, even if we can’t seem to obtain it.

    You and I mean very different things when we use the word ‘objective’ which is why I continually placed the word in quotations. You’re using it in a metaphysical sense to mean some unnatural moral dimension or strata that exists which sets right and wrong. I use it to mean that you can’t arbitrarily call anything you like right or wrong, since it’s always tied to what produces our flourishing/well-being, something that isn’t entirely subjective.

    Lastly, from a more human and less philosophical perspective, think about how much a moral or commendable act is diminished if someone does it only to get a reward, or because someone told them to do it. It’s a very depressing world you’re advocating for. We all do many things because we want to, because we care for one another, see that others are like ourselves and enjoy friendships and cooperation, not because God has to tell us like children how to behave. To say that these common reasons we all have for why we behave as we do are entirely subjective and arbitrary unless a divine will tells it to us is degrading and dehumanizing.
41. Ryan says:

    October 20, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I think many of these comments are an unfortunate case of boxing yourself into a particular worldview and only examining evidence, lines of argument and observations that fit neatly into it.

    Broad facts from science in general, secular philosophy, anthropology, psychology, history, physics, etc. all seem to be lacking from many of these remarks.
42. John Inglis` says:

    October 21, 2012 at 6:50 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    “You might enjoy semantic quibbling and pedantic analyses, but I don’t. ” — No, I prefer finding out what is true. Disagreeing with you, and pointing out why you are wrong is not being pedantic (if it is, why are you also engaging in it?). Accurate communication and investigation of the truth require accuracy in terms. And FYI, being pedantic refers to being overly concerned with trivial points. A reply to the Euthyphro argument is not trivial.

    On divine command theory, you are simply wrong. There is an important and significant distinction between a moral command that is not restricted or grounded by something else, and one that is. You appear not to be aware of relevant literature on this issue. A classic statement of the problem is that given by Bertrand Russell, in his work Why I Am Not a Christian:

    “If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.”

    Christian morality cannot be an arbitrary command because God cannot sin, “It is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). Hence God’s morality is constrained by, or grounded in something. If that grounding is outside of / anterior to God then he is not the sovereign omnipotent God of Christianity.

    If Goodness is an essential characteristic or quality of God, then it is not stuck on the…
43. Ryan says:

    October 21, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    That’s a good question. Hoping rather naively that even a pseudointellectual, cherry-picking quasi-philosopher’s worldview – formed in an unbalanced, self-serving way, can be broached or at least considered for it’s flaws. The best from your camp are willing to entertain doubt to sharpen their own views, or just to admit the limits of human belief and faith.

    Accuracy in terms isn’t all that’s required for successful truth investigation. What are you, a rationalist? Did you get the memo yet about science and empiricism being adopted by almost every serious person as the most reliable form of inquiry? You really don’t know that evidence-based accounts – in combination with logical clarity & precision – have been far more successful in solving problems and predicting how matter behaves than rationalism?

    I didn’t say your reply to the Euthypro argument was trivial. I said your attempt to distinguish your view from DCT was pedantic and wrong. Is this willful misinterpretation here? What a time waster!

    You say: “On DCT, you are simply wrong.”

    From the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:

    “Divine Command Ethics – an ethical theory according to which part or all of morality depends upon the will or nature of God as promulgated by divine commands.”

    For someone concerned with subtle distinctions in analysis to the exclusion of broader considerations of evidence and impartiality, you missed something key. I did NOT say there isn’t a difference between a DCT theorist who says God’s act of commanding action P makes it right, and a DCT theorist who says morality is grounded in and flows from his essential, good nature. I said that both these views fall under the umbrella of DCT schools of thought.

    The arguments have advanced, by the way, since Russell and the 1900s.

    You haven’t answered other objections. Why should God’s goodness alone dictate how he legislates? What of his other attributes? Did a good God legislate genocide,…
44. Ryan says:

    October 21, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    A few others I put in after I got cut off just include reemphasizing objections I’ve made that stand unrefuted.

    How do you know God exists? How do you know he’s the God depicted in the Christian bible? How do you know the bible as we have it contains God’s unadulterated, inerrant revelation? If you think it does, I have some verses to bring up from the Old Testament containing divine decrees that don’t reflect an all-good nature or timeless wisdom. If it doesn’t, by what criteria do you filter the man-made and God-breathed contents?

    How do you know God is good or all good? How do you know he would legislate morality in accordance with the ‘good’ aspect of his nature? Couldn’t some other aspect of his being dictate what moral code he would legislate? If God legislates according to what’s good, to the extent we can discover what our good is, then can’t we discover and ground morality without the bible or God telling it to us. I have trouble taking you at face value when you claim that, in making daily ethical decisions, you don’t nearly always reflect on empathy, consequences, what produces yours and others well-being/flourishing, what promotes cooperation, fair-play, etc.

    I don’t expect you to address all these questions. I’m drawing attention to the fact that one of us prefers a firm grasp on the questions or problems rather than permanent, final adherence to solutions that don’t answer them, raise new, more difficult questions or fail to explain or account for evidence deriving from multiple domains of inquiry (i.e. science, psychology, anthropology, physics, etc.)

    There’s a palpable myopic quality to many of the comments in this thread. Many apologists seem to take refuge in philosophy, then cherry-pick philosophical flavors to confirm a belief they uncritically smuggled past customs, and hope that couching arguments in philosophical form avoids the annoying problem of considering evidence from the sciences.
45. John Inglis` says:

    October 21, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Are you seriously interested in answers Ryan? or are you just a troll? Should I really be writing answers to you? or just to the other readers who might browse here?

    Everyone does philosophy Ryan, everyone alive. Philosophy is just thinking about stuff–like life, death, love, friendship, truth, existence. So everyone takes “refuge” in philosophy, even you. You’ve been engaging in philosophy just by reading the posts and responding to them. And why is that you are so sure that it’s others and not you who is “cherry-pick[ing] philosophical flavors to confirm a belief they [you] uncritically smuggled past customs”?

    Philosophy also undergirds science.
46. Ryan says:

    October 21, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I’m not interested in answers…just questions. Honestly, you should have picked up on that from my last submission. This isn’t intended to be self-glorifying, but I take inspiration from Socrates. I know what I don’t know, and a keen focus on keeping that attitude is what makes any real intellectual or leading scientist/researcher so successful. I am neither, but that attitude can only help. Once you think you know and have it figured out, you won’t learn or improve much more. A simple, cheesy phrase will have to do: Can you fill a cup that’s already full?

    Instead of focusing on answers, it might be more useful to focus on informed discussion and firmly grasping what the questions really are.

    I don’t know what a troll is. I don’t visit many online forums, usually just Facebook and occasionally a select few forums on philosophy or religion.

    At some point, you’ll have to apply the principle of charity here. I’m not being that vague. What I mean by take refuge in philosophy is to hide behind it and use it to compensate for some weakness or flaw. By no means did I mean to say – nor do I think it makes any sense to read it that way – that philosophy is bad or useless. I have a philosophy degree, took it seriously and did well in it. It’s important.

    But too often religious types adopt philosophy as their primary toolset and way of couching and communicating arguments to the exclusion of other important ways of knowing, like science! Clearly, this is unbalanced and likely to lead to an incomplete, myopic picture of reality. “When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem seems like a nail.” (- Don’t Remember)

    Can you really tell me with a straight face that most Christian apologists/philosophers haven’t made up their mind about God and are unwilling to change it BEFORE they start studying philosophy. Key word…before. Just to make sure we avoid as much further misinterpretation as possible.
47. Ryan says:

    October 21, 2012 at 11:03 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    So, to be perfectly clear, my beef is with those who would serve up philosophy a la carte, and who would largely insulate their worldview and arguments from broader considerations of the findings in various sciences.

    And how do I know I’m not guilty of serving up philosophy a la carte? I don’t, and probably am to some extent…we all do. The difference between us is I know this and compensate the best I can. Nonetheless, I think my tendency to be more cautious, skeptical and focused on clearly understanding the problems and questions is evidence enough that I’ve made a good faith effort to avoid the confirmation bias. I don’t mean this to sound self-important, but I think this is a fundamental problem or blind spot among many christian philosophers and apologists.
48. Ryan says:

    October 21, 2012 at 11:21 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I don’t want to be too presumptuous, but my guess would be that your reaction to my emphasis on grasping complex questions over formulating quick answers that only raise more ?’s signals the kind of incomplete, cherry-picked exposure to philosophy that I mentioned earlier.
49. Worth a Look 10.22.12 – Trevin Wax says:

    October 22, 2012 at 2:34 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    [...] The 5 Responses to the Problem of Evil: [...]
50. John Inglis` says:

    October 22, 2012 at 5:25 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    And what, in this thread, counts as a cherry picked bit of philosophy? You should deal with the actual arguments put forward rather than hiding behind pejorative accusations. And this is a blog, not a treatise so you gotta cut people some slack. Moreover, the topic of this thread is one issue, and not intended to cover the gamut of arguments for and against the Christian God.

    You proferred the Euthyphro dilemma as an argument against God and Christian morality. I showed that you were wrong.

    Your arguments against Christian philosophers are a (failed) attempt at poisoning the well. Even if they are biased, etc., so what? Show where their arguments are wrong. It is the correctness of the arguments that counts, not the source or advocate of the argument.

    On the definition of Divine Command Theory you provided, you are correct that commands of God flowing from his nature fall within that theory.

    However, you are wrong that there is no distinction between arbitrary commands (i.e., commands not grounded in something) and commands flowing from God’s nature. Only the former are relevant to the E. Dilemma. The Russell quote is an example of the statement of the E. Dilemma vis a vis the Christian God. His statement of it is the same one you are using, and the same that was used in centuries before him.

    ***

    Re Trotter “First, we don’t have any reason to believe that God ever intended us to live in a world free from any pain.” The pain we get from touching a hot stove is a good that protects us (lepers suffer because they don’t feel pain). However, the argument from evil is that there is too much pain in this world, that if there were a good God, he would have created a world with a lesser amount of pain. Hence, given that there is this much pain, God must not exist.
51. bill says:

    October 22, 2012 at 9:56 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    i think ryan just likes to hear himself talk…
52. Nick says:

    October 22, 2012 at 10:50 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Hi Michael,
    I recently have been studying Revelations 2:8-11(NJKV): “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, ‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life: 9 “I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10 Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. 11 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.”’

    Sometimes it is His will that we suffer (notice not by His hand directly, but the devil’s), but it is for testing and trial, to refine us and our faith in Him though the suffering, not necessarily the deliverance from it. Notice Jesus tells them the suffering is about to come, and knows exactly how long it will be, and that some must remain faithful until death.

    Anyway, I just thought that this portion of Scripture may help in developing one’s idea of suffering and evil and God’s hand in it. It obviously isn’t the only portion of Scripture to help us in understanding, but I think it’s a good one to meditate on. God bless as you and all of us as we seek His truth and His glory, not our own.
53. Quora says:

    October 22, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Why doesn’t the existence of evil in the world keep Christians up at night?…

    > God has good reasons for allowing suffering and evil to exist. He uses suffering and evil to accomplish a greater good, even if we never know exactly what that reason is. God is on our team and he is both the quarterback and coach! You see, the “logi…
54. steve hays says:

    October 22, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    “Will says: C Michael, I reject your position that the concept of evil and suffering (or goodness) can only exist within a Christian world view. You have offered no support for the claim and should understand how insulting and myopic it is to non Christians and non theists.”

    Many atheist thinkers admit that atheism is unable to justify objective moral norms. They admit that atheism entails moral relativism or moral nihilism. That’s not a Christian caricature of atheism. You need to keep up with your own side of the argument.

    As to “insulating,” you only have the right to be offended if there’s an objective distinction between right and wrong. So your umbrage begs the question.
55. steve hays says:

    October 22, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Ryan says:

    “How do you know God exists? How do you know he’s the God depicted in the Christian bible? How do you know God is good or all good?”

    We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. There’s a vast corpus of literature in apologetics, natural theology, and philosophical theology addressing those issues.

    “How do you know the bible as we have it contains God’s unadulterated, inerrant revelation? If you think it does, I have some verses to bring up from the Old Testament containing divine decrees that don’t reflect an all-good nature or timeless wisdom.”

    That begs the question. You need a source and standard of objective morality to render that value judgment in the first place.
56. Quora says:

    October 22, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    If God is good and loving ,then why there is violence and injustice still prevailing in world?God has the power to destroy all evils and create harmony all over the world….

    > 4. The Atheistic Response * Premise 1: God is all-good (omnibenevolent) (untrue) * Premise 2: God is all-powerful (omnipotent) (untrue) * Premise 3: Suffering and evil exist (true) Conclusion: An all-good, all-powerful God could not exist since there…
57. William Huget says:

    October 22, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    This is an important topic that can be a barrier to belief for unbelievers or a hindrance to an intimate relationship with God for believers. I think position 5 cannot claim to be THE Christian position. Equally capable, godly believers have come up with other views of theodicy that merit consideration. As pointed out, I would say the Calvinistic/deterministic view impugns the character and ways of God, while the Open Theist views of William Hasker, Gregory Boyd, John Sanders, etc. merit consideration. Having studied Open Theism for over 30 years, I would not say the information here resonates with what I believe or am reading in the dozens of books/articles by prominent Open Theists. The article is a needed attempt, but I would not find it fair or satisfactory overall. Of course, this is a huge issue that cannot be done justice in a brief article.
58. John I. says:

    October 22, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Like or Dislike: 1

    Re CMP & S. Hays, “if there is no God, there is not really any such thing as evil.”

    I disagree. The difficulty for atheists is not in failing to recognize evil, but in failing to provide sufficient grounds for it. An atheist would (unless completely evil or socio-pathic herself) be able to point at rape or the murder of a child and state, “that is evil, that is morally wrong”. Of their account for their moral view would be different than mine. I would argue that atheists can recognize evil because we all share the image of God and all share a common conscience.

    Consequently, it is also possible for an atheist to have and live by a moral sense of ethics.

    However, having a concept of evil, recognizing evil and living morally are not the same as being able to provide adequate grounds for universal sense of evil / good.

    However, more relevant to the topic of this thread is the recognition that atheists do not need to have their own grounds for evil in order to pose the dilemmas outlined by Patton. Atheists rely on the Christian definitions of evil and good, and use an alleged incoherence in the Christian’s beliefs to attack the Christian view.

    ***

    There are also acceptable answers to the dilemmas that Patton does not cover. It is acceptable for the Christian to agree that there are gratuitous evils, that God is opposed to all evil and did not decree for it to occur, and that Christians do not have to seek to justify the evil under discussion but rather trust in God’s power to overcome and annihilate it.
59. Ryan says:

    October 22, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    John Inglis said:

    “On the definition of Divine Command Theory you provided, you are correct that commands of God flowing from his nature fall within that theory. However, you are wrong that there is no distinction between arbitrary commands (i.e., commands not grounded in something) and commands flowing from God’s nature.

    Ryan said (6 comments prior to John’s remark):

    “I did NOT say there isn’t a difference between a DCT theorist who says God’s act of commanding action P makes it right, and a DCT theorist who says morality is grounded in and flows from his essential, good nature. I said that both these views fall under the umbrella of DCT schools of thought.”

    Your comments are thoroughly replete with these kind of blatantly false mischaracterizations. This conversation won’t advance if you refuse to conduct it in good faith.

    I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but excuse me, the skeptic doesn’t need to borrow from the Christian tradition when labeling an act wrong or evil. Both concepts predate Christianity, and are found in religious traditions like Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Egyptian mythology, etc. It’s not amusing anymore to watch these historical revisions go unrefuted. This fantasy that Christianity has always dominated minds and hearts and gave us most useful forms of knowledge/understanding throughout history is just that…fantasy. Differentiating between ordinary wrongdoing and evil is a discussion for a future comment…

    Second, while the two versions of DCT are distinct, it’s a distinction without a difference. You only change the form of the dilemma. Is compassion good because it’s a part of God’s nature, or is compassion a part of God’s nature because it is already good? When you decided to regard biblical content as historically accurate, you judged that God was good. This requires logically prior criteria for good apart from your belief in God or the bible.
60. Ryan says:

    October 22, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    John I. said:

    “You should deal with the actual arguments put forward rather than hiding behind pejorative accusations.”

    In all seriousness, and putting all thinly-veiled vitriol aside, I can’t stick around if you continue mischaracterizing our discussion. Does anyone who happens to be watching – 1 or 2 people maybe – think that I haven’t offered substantive responses to John’s solution to the Euthypro dilemma? Simply because I tacked on a critique of many Christian apologists/philosopher’s seemingly lopsided, incomplete exposure to philosophy doesn’t mean I failed to address your claims through reasoned argument.

    I bet your a perfectly nice guy and that I’d like you if I met you. We’re both probably not like this in person when we take our philosophy and religion hats off. And I’m the last guy that expects everyone to be schooled in philosophy or religion. If that was the case, who would get the real work done? All I ask is that folks be honest about their knowledge limitations and hold beliefs tentatively or with humility in areas where they haven’t engaged in sustained reflection.

    So, here’s a concrete example of cherry-picking and philosophic myopia: Apologists often think that inventing or dogmatically accepting the existence of God, and then proceeding to create/maintain a philosophically coherent belief system around this being, counts as being faithful (nice word choice) to a healthy mind’s need for reason and evidence.

    There are many problems with this approach, some extraordinarily obvious, some not. First, rationalism as a school of thought is dead, or at least it should be. I think you know what rationalism is, I don’t want to insult by defining it. Experience/evidence-based investigation, not reason, is undeniably the most reliable form of inquiry ever known, not reason or philosophy. Is this fact disputed by anyone?

    Second, almost no philosopher save for some Christian philosophers believes that…
61. Ryan says:

    October 22, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    …reason or philosophy too far removed or detached from knowledge derived from experience/science is a reliable way of forming knowledge or discovering truth. For one, history is replete with examples of inquiry conducted through reason simpliciter and it’s utter failure to properly explain/predict the behavior of matter.

    Kant himself thought reason ought to be largely subsumed under experience and the role it plays in forming knowledge and understanding. He thought things like logic and analytic truths were constitutive, and true by definition. Regulative principles were those assumptions that – while not derived solely from experience – are necessary for orienting yourself coherently within the realm of experience, and thus justifiable assumptions. Mathematical truths are a funny case that he discusses, but it’s too long for this post.

    Anyway, Kant warns against relying on reason alone. He gives the example of antinomies, contradictory conclusions that one can arrive at through deductive proof on topics like quantity, quality, relation, space and time, god, and free will.

    Here’s the point. The Western analytic tradition of philosophy broadly sees it’s role as secondary to science in terms of reliability, deriving truths that predict matter’s behavior, and primacy in general. There’s a range of views on just how this works, and I’ll have to gloss over the nuances. Quine – a 20th century philosopher – thought that philosophy’s proper role is to be wholly subsumed under science, and it’s job is merely to clarify scientific findings and through language convention set up rules for logic, clarity and consistency. The goal of philosophy discovering a first principle, an unconditioned, is seen as misguided.

    This might be slightly too strong a conclusion, but there’s considerable truth in his views. Think of Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction, thought by him and many Christian apologists to be indubitable…
62. Ryan says:

    October 22, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    “A thing cannot both be A and not-A at the same time in the same sense.”

    Quantum physics has reliably demonstrated that this isn’t true at the fundamental, smallest level of reality. That doesn’t mean that PNC isn’t a reliable guide to rational discourse, but it puts reason in it’s proper place and context, as something not to be trusted in itself by itself apart from experience.

    The whole point here, finally, is that I argue Christian apologists go about enquiring on God’s existence in entirely the wrong way. They rely very heavily on reason and philosophy and very, very lightly on science, experience, history, psychology, anthropology, etc., and for this reason I justifiably feel rightly suspicious, as do many analytic philosophers whose objections shouldn’t be disingenuously trivialized as rebelling against God or failing to apprehend the given.
63. Ryan says:

    October 22, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Steve,

    “We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. There’s a vast corpus of literature in apologetics, natural theology, and philosophical theology addressing those issues.”

    A wide range of evidence/commentary exists that casts doubt on God’s existence, from philosophy, psychology, history, anthropology, physics, etc. You won’t see me casually dusting my hands as if to say: “I rest my case.”

    Any explanation invoking God is, to state the obvious, inextricably linked to whether we have enough reason/evidence to affirm God’s actual existence.

    Again, this is my main problem with the way most Christian apologists generally conduct themselves. They invent/ dogmatically assume God exists, which is questionable at best, doubtful at worst, construct a mostly coherent philosophical belief system around it, and pass this method off as being reasonable and evidence-based. An oversimplification, of course, and some good ones avoid this, but many focus excessively on syllogistic formal arguments divorced from experience. 15-16th century rationalism rears it’s ugly, defeated head again!

    The first logical step is forgotten. Before proceeding with building upon a theory or belief, we first need evidence it’s true and tethered to reality. In philosophy, this is why the coherence theory of truth is rejected. Consistency isn’t a sufficient condition for truth, because it doesn’t give us indication of whether it corresponds to anything real. You can make belief in God somewhat rational, and that’s fine. What you can’t do is hold an epistemically unwarranted strong, certain belief in God and claim it’s impossible for me to make moral judgements or have meaning and purpose.
64. steve hays says:

    October 22, 2012 at 10:12 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Ryan,

    Your comment simply begs the question in favor of atheism.
65. Ryan says:

    October 22, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Steve,

    Your comment admits defeat, recants all claim to belief in Christianity and names me supreme ruler of planet earth!

    I could get used to occupying this fantasy world where the mere act of utterance magically transforms reality…
66. William Huget says:

    October 22, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    It is not begging the question if a statement is true. It is true that God exists based on the evidence. The same cannot be said for the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
    http://www.gotquestions.org/flying-spaghetti-monsterism.html
67. Ryan says:

    October 22, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Yes, it is indisputably, indubitably true that God exists! There is no room for reasonable doubt!

    I mean, we have the prime mover, the contingency, the first cause, the design, and the moral argument, so the debate is over, right? And we think the bible is evidence, too!

    But wait…most historians don’t consider the bible a historically accurate depiction of events. The testimony of a select group of mostly illiterate, superstitious folk shouldn’t be taken at face value, should it? Events recorded 50+ years (in the gospel) after the fact by authors, some of whom remain uncertain, that detail extraordinary events thought to be highly improbable can’t be regarded as knock down evidence, can it?

    How about the narrow, specific scope of the bible…doesn’t that suggest it might be man-made? How about the fact that it contains prejudices and inequalities against women and slaves common to that time period and culture. Does that suggest it might be man-made? What about attributing human qualities, especially negative ones, to a deity, and claiming that he commanded his people to carry out acts of violence on whole cities and virgin women? Constantly reminded his own people how ‘stiff-necked’ they are and how he could wipe them out at any moment? The continuation and borrowing of rituals from religions of the day? The vague and sometimes contradictory nature of the bible? The fact that God’s idea of revealing himself to all of mankind consists in choosing a small tribe 3,000+ years ago in an illiterate part of the world as special people that have divine warrant to kill, conquer and rule? Do any of these count as some degree of reason to doubt the bible’s divine authority?

    Many Physicists dismiss as presumptuous and too quick the prime mover, first cause and contingency arguments, right…?

    Nah! Okay, I admit it, I’m begging the question and assuming the point I’m trying to prove by not providing ANY reasons for my skepticism. You got me.
68. Ryan says:

    October 22, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    It’s a strange self-reinforcing beast you’ve created for yourself.

    I really wouldn’t care if some of the religious didn’t behave naively and stifle progress due to false beliefs about what God wants. Actions are more important than belief, but once those beliefs beget misguided action, we have to say what we think about them. And as a personal example, I think it’s silly and unnecessary that an acquaintance of mine killed himself during his junior year of high school, leaving a note discussing how much his externally imposed guilt and shame over being homosexual contributed to his decision.
69. Five Responses to the Problem of Evil « thereformedmind says:

    October 23, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    [...] and critique the different non-Christian responses as well as defend his Christian answer.  Here's the rest] Share this:ShareEmailPrintDiggFacebookStumbleUponLinkedInTwitterRedditLike this:LikeBe the first [...]
70. If God is good, why is there so much evil? « Strengthened by Grace says:

    October 24, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    [...] Patton interacts with “Five Responses to the Problem of Evil.” I don’t want you to be surprised by suffering. I want you to be able to handle evil and pain both [...]
71. John I. says:

    October 25, 2012 at 10:19 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Ryan, you misunderstand “a cannot be not-a”. The concePt refers to logical Propositions and the relation of identity.
    As to material identity, the relation holds even at the quantum level. The issue is one of indeterminacy, not different things being identical at the same time in the same way.
72. Ryan says:

    October 25, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I don’t think I misunderstood the law of noncontradiction (LNC) at all. I misunderstood your interpretation of it, you mean? A rather self-serving interpretation, if I may say so.

    Quantum mechanics have taught us (and understood by few, including you & me) that there can be something called a “linear superposition of physical states.” Translation…there can be a state of physical reality where an electron has a “spin up” and “spin down” simultaneously. Another translation…an electron can spin in opposite directions at the same time.

    Let A represent the following: Electron P spins in direction R at time T.

    So, you explain to me how this phenomenon can’t be recapitulated in the form of LNC: Something cannot be both A and not A (Electron P does NOT spin in direction R at time T) at the same time in the same way?

    Look, bottom line, you’re still in a sense hiding behind philosophy and not addressing the heart of my argument. I said that reason – in isolation from knowledge derived from experience – isn’t a very reliable guide to truth. This conclusion is accepted by most academics, scientists and philosophers. We aren’t rationalists anymore. Our most important systems of knowledge that predict the behavior of matter and improve our lives crucially depend on observation and experimentation. Divorce your argument or line of reasoning from this – and most of us say you won’t be tracking truth very reliably.

    I’m really okay with some forms that Christian belief takes…just not this dogmatic form that says there is NO room for reasonable doubt, and that I could never be wrong about my beliefs, ever! I think that’s dangerous and arrogant, and some of the best people I know are those that regularly change their minds because they’re continually learning and revising their systems of knowledge. You ask anyone in fields constantly changing (IT, physics) about whether dogmatism is a valued trait.
73. Weekly Links (10/26/2012) « The Beacon says:

    October 26, 2012 at 3:10 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    [...] his excerpt of his com­ing book, Michael Patton dis­cusses five responses to the prob­lem of evil. See how he uses three premises (and the omis­sion of one or two of them) causes one to draw [...]
74. As 5 respostas ao Problema do Mal | O Filho de Davi | ...Hosana ao Filho de Davi!... Mateus 21:9 says:

    October 26, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    [...] traduzido e gentilmente cedido por Filipe Guerra | iPródigo | original aqui [...]
75. God draws straight with crooked lines | Trekking Through the Wilderness says:

    October 28, 2012 at 10:19 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    [...] interested in a more theological or intellectual view of the problem of evil, I recommend The Five Responses to the Problem of Evil by Michael [...]
76. John I. says:

    November 9, 2012 at 1:16 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    FYI, Ryan, quantum superposition is not actual reality, but a concept used to help describe the undetermined state of a system prior to measurement (and also in mathematical solutions to the Schrodinger equation). We can’t “know” reality without measuring it, and measuring will reveal a particular configuration of a previously unknown system state. The system (of particles, fields) prior to measurement could be in one or more configurations.
77. Ryan Mavis says:

    November 9, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    John,

    I’m not a physicist, and neither are you. Both of us know almost nothing about quantum mechanics. The key difference between us now, it seems, is that one of us doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.

    I don’t know where you got this description from, but it’s wrong. I know very little, but know enough to say it’s mistaken. The theory says – for example – that an electron exists partly in all it’s theoretically possible states simultaneously, and it’s only when we measure it that it takes the form of one intermediate configuration.

    Paul Tirac has a good description. If two states are superimposed (say electron spin up (A) and spin down (B)), when measured, they will sometimes be either A or B, and more confusing neither wholly A or B, but some intermediary state that can only be expressed in probabilistic terms.

    Most physicists can’t wrap their heads around that, let alone you and me. But that’s the way the world tells us it works. And that’s been my point all along. We need to let the world tell us how it works, not common sense notions, or classical logical systems untethered to reality. Logic helps you order and make sense of propositions. It doesn’t lead to knowledge of the physical world.

    Can you understand my criticism of rationalistic (by this, I mean using mostly reason to analyze something and not observation/evidence) forms of inquiry and analysis? They forget the most crucial component of forming reliable beliefs…evidence! If we were all still rationalists, we’d still believe, as Aristotle did, that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones. Only when Galileo tested claims against reality did we change that belief.

    Here’s an article on superposition proven to occur on an object visible to the naked eye. A piece of metal both oscillated and didn’t oscillate at the same time.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18669-first-quantum-effects-seen-in-visible-object.html
78. Maria says:

    December 3, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Stop belittling human suffering. The problem of evil is deadly, and if your book consists of this kind of idiocy, then you had best not publish it.

    Problem of evil is unsolvable for those who believe in a triple omni god.

    IF you are triple omni, THEN THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES, as consequences by their very nature imply limitation. If you were triple omni, there would be no suffering. People would not die of cancer. People would not be buried alive in earthquakes. There would be no genocides, rapes, murders. There would be no death. In fact, the world would be exactly as you (probably) believe that it will be like in heaven. How convenient for you, then, that heaven is invisible, and you can simply make it up through wish fulfillment. You can pooh pooh the suffering in our world (that guy with cancer? No biggie! Get rid of him in a paragraph and move on to self righteousness) while blathering on about the joys of heaven (don’t you worry! God who wants you to suffer here will end it all when you’re dead. We have no evidence or reason to believe in an afterlife, but just take what I’m writing on faith).

    Dude, any triple omni being who allows this kind of suffering is a monster. DEAL. WITH. FACTS.

    And no, I am not a troll, nor am I apologetic. I am, however, very angry, as stupidity makes me angry. There is, to date, no real answer to the problem of evil. Given a choice between a triple omni god who allows suffering and no god, I’d choose no god. At least my reason would not suffer through the choice, and there’s enough misery on earth already without my martyring my reason to an impossible cause.

    Rethink that book.
79. C Michael Patton says:

    December 3, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Good advice. Based on this random comment from someone that I don’t know, I have called my publisher and told them that they cannot publish the book due to rethinking that this person told me to do.

    Would that surprise you? If so, why bother with such admonishments? I would suggest that, if you are serious, you attempt to gain my respect so that you have an ear to criticize. This takes a lot of time and investment. Are you willing to do this? If not, then don’t waste your time, thoughts and energy with “hit-and-run” posts. You could very well be crossing a sinful line in doing so (as I am by even responding to such a post.)
80. Ryan says:

    December 3, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Wow Maria, that was quite the classy, sophisticated, civil response. I guess you’d fall in the category of what William Rowe calls the hostile atheist. (See ‘The Problem of Evil & Some Varieties of Atheism’ for an extremely thorough take on theodicy).

    In a sense, I understand your frustration. Religious beliefs can be stubborn and cause one to inflict suffering under the guise of piety, and to willfully ignore clear evidence. We’re all familiar with examples of this both in the U.S. and with more insidious cases around the globe.

    To displace your frustration onto Michael, and to assume folks like him all think and behave this way is far less understandable.

    Personally, I think a solid philosophical case can be made against the existence of an all-good, powerful, omniscient God from the argument of evil, among other lines of argument.

    The difference between us, it seems, is I don’t care what Michael believes nearly as much as how he behaves and treats others. I’ll bet he’s a pretty good person who’s charitable and giving. I don’t think it’s good manners to paint someone’s entire character and worth with a broad brushstroke based SOLELY on their philosophical positions. Really, it’s infantile and babyish.

    I’ll argue more fervently with those who say God legislates against condoms, homosexuality, equal rights for women and minorities, that unbelievers can’t be moral, etc.

    I think your problem is – while you despise stupidity in others and fancy yourself a reliable detector of it – you’re unable to detect it in yourself.

    Any good philosopher or smart person who’s studied epistemology long enough (or intuited it through common sense and sustained reflection) knows that we don’t fully control our beliefs. Where & when you were born, who your parents, friends, teachers, peers are, and numerous other factors out of your control strongly influence your beliefs.
81. Ryan says:

    December 3, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    You’re inability to grasp this somewhat simple, demonstrable fact of human nature, and temper your judgments of others’ beliefs accordingly, may reveal some gaps in your knowledge of the findings of the social sciences, of philosophy and human nature.
82. John I. says:

    December 4, 2012 at 5:05 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    RE “The theory says – for example – that an electron exists partly in all it’s theoretically possible states simultaneously, and it’s only when we measure it that it takes the form of one intermediate configuration.”

    “Theory”: a conceptual representation of reality

    “measure”: we can’t actually know anything about the nature of reality until we measure it, and even then the very act of measuring hides some of the information. Furthermore, you are agreeing that the nature of reality is indeterminate before measuring. It is theoretically useful to describe the electron as being in all states simultaneously, but it is just as true to state that the electron does not exist in any of those states.
83. kidequilibrium says:

    March 4, 2013 at 11:02 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    You’ve solved nothing with your reasoning, you’ve piggybacked the ideas of past Philosophers and used everyday arguments that laymen continue to use to try to solve the Problem of Evil, nothing you’ve said brings anything new to the game.

    And are you seriously quoting the bible throughout this blog post? Do you even understand what Philosphy really is? The approach you have used isn’t Philosophy, it’s all bias, it’s all opinion. You definitely can’t sit here and try to denounce the Problem of Evil by using bible passages. Circular much?

    And then to say that we can’t know if God has a purpose for evil that is actually of good intent. Do you understand how irrational and circular those words are? First off, that means that we could label anything with malicious or evil intent as God. And this causes a serious problem with our Justice System, if evil is actually happening for a greater good then these people aren’t committing crimes.

    But the biggest problem you seem to completely overlook isn’t trying to solve why there is good and evil, it’s solving why there is evil at all. You see, why would God create a universe that had evil in it at all? And if you’re to say that evil comes with good, that they are one in the same or anything of the like, then you run into a serious problem. Because that would mean that God is limited, that he is bound by some sort of laws himself.

    If you think restating arguments handed down for centuries is at all relevant, continue your mediocre work. This isn’t Philosophy and none of this is profound. But don’t worry, it’s completely natural for humans not to be capable of critical thinking. It’s a well known issue that once a person holds a belief they cherry-pick confirming evidence while evidence to the contrary yields cognitive disossance.
84. William Huget says:

    March 4, 2013 at 11:25 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    God did not create a universe that had evil in it. Original creation was ‘very good’, but it then become fallen, contrary to His will, desires, intentions, because of free agency. The possibility of evil is not the certainty/necessity of it. God created Lucifer who became Satan. Judas was born innocent (some would disagree) and then became a betrayer/son of perdition. Adam was created innocent, but then became fallen through His own choices, contrary to God’s will for him.
85. Ryan says:

    March 5, 2013 at 11:37 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    There are a few problems with your post, William.

    It’s fine if you want to accept the contents of the bible at face value. But you can’t ask the rest of us to. I see no reason to take biblical author’s word for it that God created the universe in seven days, held all of mankind responsible for the choices of two human beings, flooded the entire world while cramming all known organisms into an oversized ark, etc., etc.

    I think its strange that people feel so confident about whether a supernatural creator exists and what his character and will for us is. But go for it.

    Second, this story of the fall of man doesn’t account for natural evil, or evil/suffering that occurs due to natural disasters and other impersonal forces. It also doesn’t account for whether it’s just to punish an entire race for all of time for the actions of two of it’s members.
86. John I. says:

    March 5, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I think it is strange that some people are so confident that a supreme spiritual being does not exist. It is far more rational to believe in one. Moreover, it is impossible to make any sense of any kind of evil if there is no God.
87. Ryan says:

    March 5, 2013 at 6:09 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I agree, strong denial of the existence of a supreme being is strange, too. It’s perfectly possible that a supreme being or beings exist. The strange part is to affirm or deny this proposition with the kind of self-assurance and certainty usually reserved for core scientific beliefs like the laws of gravity or thermodynamics. I’m afraid you’ve got a caricature in mind that doesn’t fit my attitude about God and religion.

    Why is it more rational to affirm rather than deny God’s existence? I understand that’s asking for a long answer, but more specifically, do you really think there isn’t room for reasonable doubt on whether God or gods exist?

    It is possible to make sense of evil if there is no God. I refer you to a great work by Adam Morton called ‘On Evil’. He makes an argument that we should keep the term evil in our moral vocabulary because it refers to a special category of beyond-the-pale wrongdoing whose psychological causes are unique and usually don’t show up in ordinary wrongdoing. To oversimplify, he calls it the barrier theory of evil, and defines it as acts arising from systematic psychological strategies to traverse the normal barrier we have to harming others, of finding ways to blind ourselves to the humanity of others, to the effects of our actions, etc.

    Morton fleshes this out in much greater detail with considerable psychological science to help support his ideas. If it turns out that evil just refers to this special category of wrongdoing – which most of us intuitively reach for that word to describe particularly horrific, inhumane acts – then it just might be a useful term that makes sense despite the affirmation or denial of God’s existence.
88. Ryan says:

    March 5, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I guess as a substitute for sustained reflection on these issues I could simply insist – without supporting reasons, explanation or evidence that I’ve done some thinking of my own on this issue – that belief in God is irrational and that all religious people suck. At least then I’d be adopting the kind of caricature that your comments are aimed at rebuking, and we wouldn’t be talking past each other.
89. Ryan says:

    March 5, 2013 at 7:06 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I guess as long as we’re focusing on caricatures, I could choose to address the worst caricatures on your side of the aisle rather than address you and your beliefs directly.

    A Republican Congressman from Georgia stated that evolution, the big bang theory and embryology are lies straight from the pit of hell. I guess he skipped biology and physics in college. Must be nice to simultaneously benefit from the enormous strides we’ve made in understanding the natural world through advances in medicine and technology while conveniently ignoring well-attested theories you don’t like.

    Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said the United States brought on the attack of 9/11 due to the presence of rampant sin and homosexuality. I wish I knew the mind of God like these two delusional narcissists think they do.

    Todd Akin claims women’s bodies have a way of shutting down the process that leads to fertilization during rape. This comment doesn’t deserve to be dignified by a rebuttal.

    Several evangelical leaders and prominent organizations claim Hurricane Katrina was divine retribution for a sinful nation.

    I could go on and on. The fearful and superstitious segment of the evangelical right offer countless examples of the many absurd, delusional forms that religious beliefs sometimes take. None of these guys are you or Credo House Ministries…this outfit seems a lot more sophisticated and sane than that. The caricatures on your side are far worse.
90. William Huget says:

    March 5, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    The traditional view of the church (Augustinian) is ‘original sin’. I would suggest the Fall brings physical depravity to the race (including consequences to nature), not moral depravity which is individual, personal. It would be unjust to condemn us just for being conceived or because of Adam’s sin, not fault of our own. We all universally follow in his footsteps and stand condemned because we are all selfish rebels by choice (hence personal responsibility vs blame it on Adam, devil, parents, etc.). So, you may be rejecting bad theology, not a biblical view. Theodicy/problem of evil has also been written on by great Christian thinkers/philosophers in detail that answers common objections/concerns.
91. Ryan says:

    March 5, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    According to most ‘traditional views’ of the church (escapes easy categorization), mankind is born into sin. In other words, we are conceived with an innate sinful nature before we have anything to say about the matter. You admit that it would in fact be unjust to condemn the entire human race for the actions of a small few. According to traditional views of Christian theology, this is exactly what happens.

    Theodicy has been discussed by many great Christian thinkers, many of whom don’t share your traditional view of the bible. In fact, being a biblical ‘literalist’ or a believer in biblical inerrancy is a minority position among professional theologians holding university teaching positions. This flexibility in interpreting the bible (I’d call it serving the bible up a la carte) makes it easier to explain the presence of evil in a world supposedly created by an omnibenevolent God, but there are still many unresolved questions.

    Bottom line is, you may want to consider whether your view really conforms to a ‘traditional’ take on Christian theology. To be sure, most traditional views hold that mankind is born into sin, is born fallen. If in fact we are born fallen, this obviously raises difficult questions. Why am I held responsible for the actions of a small few? Why does God judge my actions and beliefs so harshly if they’re influenced in part by factors beyond our control, especially supernatural beliefs that shouldn’t be the object of moral judgment anyway?
92. Ryan says:

    March 5, 2013 at 9:37 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    I think William Rowe, in his published work: ‘The Problem of Evil & Some Varieties of Atheism’, established a pretty difficult objection for any conceivable theodicy, with theodicy being the philosophical attempt to reconcile the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world.

    I don’t mind summarizing his position, but his work is out there for anyone to read.

    Rowe offers up the following syllogism:

    1) If an all-good, all powerful God exists, then he would prevent any case of evil/suffering he could, unless he couldn’t do so without thereby permitting suffering equally bad or worse or preventing some greater good.

    2) Evil & suffering does occur in degrees beyond what’s necessary to prevent any case of evil/suffering equally bad or worse or preventing some greater good.

    3) Therefore, God does not exist.

    Rowe admits a theist could deny proposition #2 and then affirm # 3. But he thinks we have more reason to affirm rather than deny #2. He gives an example of a random lightning strike that ignites a forest fire that eventually kills a baby deer. Incidents similar in moral respects occur all the time, and there’s no conceivable reason why this should have to occur to prevent some greater suffering or make sure we could obtain some greater good.

    Rowe is more humble than some hostile atheists out there. He thinks a somewhat rational case can be made for God’s existence, but is himself an atheist who thinks the arguments against God’s existence are more persuasive.

    Most importantly, I think a good intellectual practice is to expose yourself to and deal with the strongest arguments on the other side of your position. I rarely, if ever, see evidence of this except among a select few of the faithful. I think a deliberate attitude of one-sided, final belief without submission to further scrutiny is cultivated among some of the faithful, and it’s personally damaging and stultifying, in my…
93. Chad Dougless says:

    March 6, 2013 at 11:58 am

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Ryan,

    I see several issues with some of the assumptions you are making in your posts. I will address this one in post 42, where you say that Rowe’s position asserts “Evil & suffering does occur in degrees beyond what’s necessary to prevent any case of evil/suffering equally bad or worse or preventing some greater good.” I must now put the onus upon you as you have stated upon the Christian theologians, prove it.

    At the core, this is a blatant assumption that takes several things for granted in its construction. 1) What perspective allows us to understand all the suffering or good that occurred in any given event or series of events? 2) What allows us to objectively measure/weigh these actions? 3) Given your high praise for science and observation, can your weights/measures be used to create an experiment where suffering is caused in such a way as to impugn the possibility of a greater good?

    It should be obvious that none of these things can logically be deduced or induced. The big assumption is that Rowe has placed himself in the position of an omniscient being and can accuse God of acting in a way that impugns his character. Obviously Rowe is limited, as am I, and as are you.

    The problem with thought experiments such as this is that they are observationally fruitless. This is really just another example of “Can God make a rock so big he can’t move?” It shows a basic lack in the fundamental understanding of God and His character.

    Psalm 51:5 shows David’s understanding of our sin nature. You also falsely assume that we are punished for Adam and Eve’s actions. This assumes no culpability and no sin committed on your part. As the usual line goes, if you do not believe you are a slave to sin, prove it and sin no more.

    Now as far as the caricatures go, those people referenced in general made idiotic statements. You know it and I know it, but the grace of God covers even the fool. I look forward to discussing this more with you.
94. Ryan says:

    March 6, 2013 at 12:36 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    As long as we’re being pedantic and defining things carefully, I’m not making assumptions, I’m making assertions. Assumptions are claims that one doesn’t substantiate with any supporting reasons or evidence, whereas assertions are claims that someone backs up with reason/evidence. Assumptions are claims ‘smuggled through customs’, as it were.

    Rowe’s affirmation of Proposition #2 isn’t deductive, certain or empirical. It is inductive. In other words, he thinks the affirmation of #2 is more plausible than it’s denial. Most scientific and philosophical arguments are inductive, not deductive. Rowe never claims to know for sure that evil/suffering occurs in degrees beyond what’s necessary to prevent some greater suffering or the attainment of some greater good. He claims that based on our observation of the natural world and the many seemingly excessive, purposeless, arbitrary instances of suffering, it seems more plausible to accept rather than deny #2. Nothing more.

    Your request for a scientific experiment testing the God hypothesis is impossible and quite silly. By definition, one can’t hold constant or test for the effects of things beyond nature or beyond our empirical observational powers. We can’t see God, hold him constant to test him, we don’t know what a sufficiently greater good would look like in God’s mind, etc.

    I still think the onus of proof is on the person claiming to believe in a supernatural deity for which there is little evidence. Your line of reasoning is akin to me claiming that Zeus exists. Can you know for sure that he doesn’t throw lightning bolts regularly at the earth? After all, he could trick us into thinking we have a natural explanation for lightning strikes, since he’s that powerful! Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? I agree. Possibility doesn’t make probability.
95. Ryan says:

    March 6, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Please read the paper. You completely misunderstood his point.
96. Chad Dougless says:

    March 6, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Ryan,

    You completely misread and misrepresented everything I said. In no way did I propose a test for testing the existence of God. Please reread and understand exactly what I said about the test. The test was to scientifically assert that suffering occurs beyond what is necessary for a greater good to arise.

    You now state that it is induced based upon the observational evidence. Does this not seem ironic given that you discount any observational evidence that God exists? You discount eyewitness testimonies, teaching, transformation of people in spirit and character, etc. You have just stated that this man has such great and surpassing observational skills to appropriately induce that the acts of suffering he observes produce no greater good.

    The point I was making is that they only way to assert that is to be able to fundamentally understand the impact of any event of suffering and what greater good can arise. My line of reasoning is in no way akin to you claiming Zeus exists. In no way did I state that God has tricked us into thinking that hurricanes are a naturally understood force but in “reality” is just Him blowing really hard. Your statement shows a basic lack of argumentation and is simply an ad hominem attack against me.

    But on the same token, I would say that Rowe’s observation that there is a possibility that suffering exists in a greater quantity needed to make a greater good arise, is the same discussion. Possibility does not make probability.

    In no way did I suggest that you prove that God does or does not exist. I suggested that you prove the assertion that Rowe makes. The logic required to do so, assumes a lot of things that are ridiculous. My whole point is that Rowe has a bias that is clearly slanting his inductive reasoning to the conclusion he has already determined to be true.

    I allow that there exists reasonable doubt for the existence of God, otherwise all would believe. I also reasonably believe in God’s…
97. Ryan says:

    March 6, 2013 at 3:23 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Chad,

    I realize you never proposed a scientific test for God’s existence. I mention the God hypothesis because it belongs in a broad category of beliefs that can’t be evaluated scientifically, including the belief under discussion that suffering occurs in degrees beyond what’s necessary to promote a greater good or prevent an evil equally bad/worse. Is this clear now?

    Okay, first, there are no surviving eyewitness accounts to Jesus life, miracles, death and resurrection. The gospel we have was written well after his death, plenty of time for exaggerations to make their way in. We don’t even know for sure who wrote the four gospels.

    Second, if transformation of lives counts as evidence for the Christian God’s existence, does that mean the God of Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, pagans, etc. all exist? Simply because a belief has a positive impact on someone’s life doesn’t make the belief true. This is obvious.

    Third, I don’t discount all ‘observational evidence’ of God’s existence. In fact, I think you can make the belief somewhat rational. For me personally, the absence of convincing evidence makes me skeptical of God’s existence. Skeptical isn’t the same as strong denial, by the way.

    Fourth, Rowe doesn’t ‘induce’ anything. Let’s be clear. By way of induction, he says it seems more plausible to affirm rather than deny proposition #2, which is that evil occurs in degrees beyond what’s necessary for promoting greater goods or preventing worse evils. He leaves the possibility open that he’s wrong, he just thinks given what we know, it seems more likely that #2 is true.

    Rowe says that suffering probably occurs in degrees beyond what’s necessary for promoting greater good, not that it’s possible. Again, read the paper. The fawn dying randomly in a forest fire is the example he presents. How could this possibly promote some greater good?
98. Ryan says:

    March 6, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    The point of the Zeus example was to demonstrate that your standard of proof is ridiculously, unrealistically high.

    There is no conceivable way we can ever determine for sure whether evil exists in degrees beyond what’s necessary for promoting a greater good. We are finite beings with imperfectly evolved brains who may not be able to access parts of reality that allow us to answer this question.

    That doesn’t mean we just throw our hands up. The best we can do is induction, and considering what we know now and seeing if it’s plausible that evil probably occurs in degrees beyond what’s necessary for a greater good. The fawn in a forest fire and many other examples of senseless suffering sure seem to be pointless and the product of impersonal forces that sometimes make biological life experience pain. This is the claim. Not that we know for sure evil exists beyond degrees necessary for promoting a greater good. Only that it seems unlikely from our perspective and given the facts we know about our natural world.

    I hate how many of the religious have hijacked and watered down analytical philosophy in order to promulgate a message of faith. You’ve made it into a joke in the eyes of many I know. I ask that any would-be amateur philosopher first read Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Schopenhauer, W.V.O. Quine, Wittgenstein and may others, and familiarizing themselves with deductive, inductive, modal and symbolic logic before doing any thinking on their own.
99. Chad Dougless says:

    March 6, 2013 at 3:50 pm

    Like or Dislike: 0

    Ryan,

    I will make this as plain as can be stated. There are two many problems with his analysis for it to be logically supported. He assumes that a fawn dying via forest fire via lightning strike is an example of evil. What about that same fawn being eaten by a bear? Is that evil? Where do you draw the line on evil? Is the bear being nourished a “greater good” or an evil in the line of suffering?

    The main problem is that it is entirely and utterly subjective. So now I propose that in the above example the fawn carried a rare parasite that had the fawn grown into a full deer and been hunted and killed, would have then been served as a delicious venison dinner to Winston Churchill. The parasite would have been passed along and killed him before WWII. Thus the Allied victory would have been thwarted. My point is that this is just a random, pointless example where we cannot by any real semblance of understanding see the impact of a single event and claim it as “pointless”.

    My point as you declared is that “We are finite beings with imperfectly evolved brains who may not be able to access parts of reality that allow us to answer this question.” His inductive reasoning is flawed because it is overcome with observational bias.

    We are inductive creatures, because we cannot possibly know all of the causes of an event. Obviously we all have our own observational bias. Mine has led me from refusal that God exists, to an overwhelming conclusion that not only does God exist, but that He is the Christian God.

    When you say we don’t know for certain, do you mean that we don’t have a preponderance of evidence or 100% certainty? Because I am not certain that you exist, but based on the preponderance of evidence I would say you do. In this same way, we know who wrote the Gospels and their reference to numerous other eyewitnesses that would easily be able to recant the testimony counted within.
100. Ryan says:

     March 6, 2013 at 4:38 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     There’s something you’re missing here. Rowe doesn’t claim the fawn dying in a forest fire is an example of evil. It’s an example of suffering.

     Recall premise #1: If an all-good, all-powerful God exists, then he would prevent any evil or SUFFERING he could unless he couldn’t do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting an evil/suffering equally bad or worse.

     For Rowe, If there really is an all-good, all-powerful God, he would be compelled by his infinite goodness and power to prevent any evil/suffering he could, unless he couldn’t do it without losing a greater good or permitting evil/suffering equally bad or worse.

     Rowe then gives one example of an occurrence that sure seems like pointless suffering that doesn’t seem on any account necessary for promoting some greater good. All of us have first-hand experience with the impersonal forces that sometimes kill, maim or inflict with disease the just and the unjust alike.

     Given the vast amount of suffering or evil that occurs, without any apparent point, Rowe feels it’s safe to assume this infinitely powerful, good God doesn’t exist, because if he did, he would prevent it.

     It’s not about whether the suffering is pointless. It’s about whether it could have been prevented, and whether an all-good, all-powerful God would by his/her very nature have to prevent it, and how the observation of many instances of evil/suffering make this proposition implausible, or at least gives one good reason to deny the existence of such a being.

     When I generally say we don’t know for sure, I’m referring to the good practice of being humble, willing to revisit beliefs and admit it’s at least possible to be in error. When I say we don’t know for sure who wrote the four gospels, I mean the authorship is based more on tradition than actual scholarship. Many scholars state that we don’t know who wrote those four gospels, and whether fictions made their way in between the events…
101. Ryan says:

     March 6, 2013 at 4:38 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     …they describe and when they were actually written down. Some of these books were written over 40 years after Jesus’ life.
102. steve hays says:

     March 6, 2013 at 6:29 pm

     Like or Dislike: 1

     \Ryan says:

     “It’s fine if you want to accept the contents of the bible at face value. But you can’t ask the rest of us to.”

     You don’t represent “the rest of us.” You simply represent people who agree with you.

     “Most importantly, I think a good intellectual practice is to expose yourself to and deal with the strongest arguments on the other side of your position.”

     So what conservative Christian philosophers, theologians, Bible scholars, and apologists have you exposed yourself to?

     “I still think the onus of proof is on the person claiming to believe in a supernatural deity for which there is little evidence.”

     The onus is now you to establish your claim that there is little evidence for God’s existence.

     “Okay, first, there are no surviving eyewitness accounts to Jesus life, miracles, death and resurrection.”

     That begs the question.

     “The gospel we have was written well after his death, plenty of time for exaggerations to make their way in.”

     A non sequitur, inasmuch as gospels written well after his death can easily be written by eyewitnesses.

     “The fawn in a forest fire and many other examples of senseless suffering sure seem to be pointless and the product of impersonal forces that sometimes make biological life experience pain.”

     You need to bone up on fire ecology. Far from being pointless, forest fires are beneficial to the ecosystem.

     You ought to stop mindlessly parroting the atheists you read and begin subjecting their claims to rational scrutiny.

     “I hate how many of the religious have hijacked and watered down analytical philosophy in order to promulgate a message of faith. You’ve made it into a joke in the eyes of many I know.”

     Since according to you, we’re all just a bunch of apes, why should your apish opinions matter to me?

     “There’s something you’re missing here. Rowe doesn’t claim the fawn dying in a forest fire is an example of evil. It’s an example of suffering.”

     Unless suffering is evil, you can’t…
103. steve hays says:

     March 6, 2013 at 6:31 pm

     Like or Dislike: 1

     Cont.

     “There’s something you’re missing here. Rowe doesn’t claim the fawn dying in a forest fire is an example of evil. It’s an example of suffering.”

     Unless suffering is evil, you can’t mount an argument from evil based on suffering.

     “All of us have first-hand experience with the impersonal forces that sometimes kill, maim or inflict with disease the just and the unjust alike.”

     Time-travel stories, where the protagonist tries to improve the future by changing the past, illustrate the law of unintended consequences.
104. steve hays says:

     March 6, 2013 at 6:33 pm

     Like or Dislike: 1

     Ryan says:

     “…they describe and when they were actually written down. Some of these books were written over 40 years after Jesus’ life.”

     That’s just your tendentious assertion. And even if it were true, folks in their 60s and 70s often have clear memories of things they experienced in their teens and 20s.

     You need to stop regurgitating thoughtless objections.
105. Ryan says:

     March 6, 2013 at 7:05 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Steve,

     I’ve read William Lane Craig’s book: ‘Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview’, read Augustine’s: ‘City of God’, read almost all of C.S. Lewis’ nonfictional works, Robert Roberts, some of Aquinas’, Anselm, and many others. During my undergraduate years in philosophy, I started out as a Christian apologist and very gradually became a religious skeptic.

     And I’m sorry to have to inform you of something you should already know, but burdens of proof aren’t on those who doubt a claim. As a strict matter of logic, it’s impossible to prove a universal negative. That would require omniscience. This is one reason the burden of proof can’t be on folks who deny claims. A second reason is the amount of time wasted if everyone were expected to prove false positive claims to knowledge. You act as though my inability to disprove God’s existence with certainty amounts to a default victory for you. This is an appeal to ignorance, an informal logical fallacy, and violates axiomatic logical principles, like the one I mentioned earlier about our inability to prove universal negatives.

     You need to look up what ‘begging the question’ means. First, this is an online forum. There is no possible way I can show you why it’s generally not accepted that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. The best I can do is cite an expert source. Would you like me to? I don’t cherry-pick, either. Do you honestly not know that historians don’t accept many portions of the gospels to be historically accurate, mainly the resurrection, crucifixion and birth aspects.

     The point I was attempting to make with saying the gospels were written well after the events in question is to say that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 40-50 years is a long time for exaggerations and fictions to make their way in. Second, who is to say we should take their testimony at face value?
106. Ryan says:

     March 6, 2013 at 7:18 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     I’ve heard of the two-source hypothesis, which is currently the consensus view, but honestly, the evidence is scant, so we can’t say for sure.

     It’s weird that you pull one assertion out of my post and label it a non-sequitur. It’s part of a larger case against viewing these documents as divinely inspired. The gospels being penned well after the events they describe leaves room for fictions to creep in, while the scant evidence leaves plenty of room for doubt on authorship and divine authority, and the supernatural claims require all the more evidence before warranting any degree of belief, especially strong belief. All ribbing aside, you stink at this analytic argumentation thing.

     The fawn is just one example among countless others of senseless suffering that doesn’t discriminate. Your post has the word ‘pettifog’ written all over it. Is it not clear that God – if he is infinitely powerful – could have initiated a forest fire while clearing out the life within it? I understand that forest fires ultimately replenish a forest and enrich the soil, among other things.

     We’re not apes. We’re primates. And we’re leaps and bounds apart from other primates in terms of cognitive ability and social evolution.

     And I’m not mounting an argument from evil based on suffering. I’m saying the following:

     If there’s an all-good, all-powerful God, then he would be compelled to prevent any evil/suffering he could unless he couldn’t without thereby losing a greater good or permitting an evil equally bad or worse. Do you agree with this?

     Second, I think suffering does occur in degrees beyond what’s plausibly necessary for promoting some mysterious greater good or permitting evil/suffering that’s worse.

     So, I then conclude that God probably doesn’t exist, at least not the omnibenevolent Christian God. This isn’t my only reason for unbelief, it’s one among many.

     Now that you understand my argument better, rather than pedantic nitpicking…
107. Ryan says:

     March 6, 2013 at 7:19 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     and gross misrepresentations and pettifogging, let’s address the argument. And you shouldn’t feign more knowledge of philosophy and logic than you’ve got. It makes you appear silly. It’s okay if you don’t know. Not everyone has the time. Just be honest about your limitations.
108. Chad Dougless says:

     March 7, 2013 at 8:53 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan,

     I would ask that you step back. You claim that you are a skeptic and open to the idea that you could be wrong, yet you adamantly refuse to acknowledge anything that is contrary to your point of view. You ignore observational bias in favor of your view, specifically saying that the Gospels while they may be accounts of eyewitnesses aren’t in fact valid because there is a possibility that they may have exaggerated. You take a possibility and make it certainty in this case.

     Your overall argument that God would not reveal Himself to the Israelites because they are backwards and illiterate, or that the account of Jesus is untrue because these people were blue-collar, illiterates, is ridiculous, and fallacious at best. You do not see the fallacies in your own statements. You don’t even see where you have just assigned meaning to things without understanding what you have said, for instance an assertion is “a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason”. That is the definition. You throw out pedantic as if we are just focusing on minor details of an argument when I have been addressing the major point of the syllogism the entire time.

     You see the syllogism and say, “pointless suffering therefore God does not exist.” I say, how can you know the possible outcomes of that single event, so you cannot accurately determine your premise that the suffering is pointless or in great excess. You then ignore me completely and say, because I saw it. I don’t need to read philosophers to understand that it is patently ridiculous to assume that what you perceive of an event is all the possibilities that can conclude from the taking place of that event. No single event stands alone in time, therefore it is impossible to determine all the impacts of an event until there is no more time.
109. Chad Dougless says:

     March 7, 2013 at 9:08 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Following from this, it is arrogant to assume that you can essentially put yourself in front of God and say well I am quite certain this event didn’t need to take place in this way. You don’t know and can’t possibly know. You can’t even be certain, or probably certain that it didn’t need to happen in that way. We just don’t know the hows and whys and impacts of an event, whether made up in our head or not. Rowe’s syllogism is invalid because it relies on faulty assumptions where he is taking certain things for granted without any reasoning or support. It is fine if you think I have misrepresented him, but you have used this syllogism as part of your proof and it is for you to appropriately represent this evidence. It is not for me to go read and then discuss facts not presented in evidence.

     I have no doubt that I cannot reason you, or anyone, into faith. That is not even a premise I hold. God must open your eyes, and the Spirit must do His work in your heart before you can see the beauty of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. “It’s okay if you don’t know. Not everyone has the time. Just be honest about your limitations.”

     Further, let us get into what you view as creation’s rights upon God. Creation has no rights to exert upon God. You are falsely asserting of God that He must act in a way that you deem appropriate, instead of allowing God to speak for Himself. Romans 9:22-23, Romans 9:15. I know that you don’t believe Scripture, so ultimately those references, and there are more in Scripture, will ultimately do you little good in viewing them as evidence. The understanding you have of who God is is limited.

     When you say that you were going to be a Christian apologist it made me curious as to what and why you changed to philosophy? Were you claiming to be a Christian before that? I am curious as to what caused the shift.
110. steve hays says:

     March 7, 2013 at 10:53 am

     Like or Dislike: 1

     Ryan:

     C. S. Lewis was a popularizer. You only mention one living Christian philosopher/apologist. Yet you told us that “Most importantly, I think a good intellectual practice is to expose yourself to and deal with the strongest arguments on the other side of your position.”

     On the face of it, you’re not holding yourself to your own standards. Just among Christian philosophers, what books and articles have you read by Ed Feser, Win Corduan, Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen, Michael Rea, Paul Helm, Paul Moser, Greg Welty, James Anderson, Bill Aston, Bill Vallicella, Stephen Davis, Alexander Pruss, Victor Reppert, Tim & Lydia Mc Grew, Oliver Crisp, John Warwick Montgomery, J. J. Haldane, Stephen Evans, &c.?

     I also notice the conspicuous absence of conservative Bible scholars on your list.

     “And I’m sorry to have to inform you of something you should already know, but burdens of proof aren’t on those who doubt a claim.”

     I regret to inform you that by your own admission, you’ve been making assertions. You’ve been asserting various things to be the case or not be the case. Therefore, you assume a burden of proof to justify your assertions. A denial is still a truth-claim.

     “This is one reason the burden of proof can’t be on folks who deny claims.”

     Fine. I deny the existence of animal suffering. I deny that animals ever die in forest fires. I deny the operating premise of Rowe’s argument. And since I’m merely denying your claim, the onus is not on me to justify my denial. That was quick and easy.

     “You act as though my inability to disprove God’s existence with certainty amounts to a default victory for you.”

     No, I’ve said you need to argue for your assertions.

     “You need to look up what ‘begging the question’ means.”

     Begging the premise means taking for granted a disputable contention not conceded by the opposing side. That’s what you’ve been doing here.
111. steve hays says:

     March 7, 2013 at 10:53 am

     Like or Dislike: 1

     Cont. “There is no possible way I can show you why it’s generally not accepted that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. The best I can do is cite an expert source. Would you like me to?… Do you honestly not know that historians don’t accept many portions of the gospels to be historically accurate, mainly the resurrection, crucifixion and birth aspects.”

     You originally said: “Most importantly, I think a good intellectual practice is to expose yourself to and deal with the strongest arguments on the other side of your position.”

     So what commentaries, NT introductions, and monographs on the authorship, dating, and historicity of the Gospels by conservative scholars have you exposed yourself to? Likewise, what conservative scholars have you exposed to on the historical Jesus? Remember, I’m just holding you to your own standards.

     “The point I was attempting to make with saying the gospels were written well after the events in question is to say that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 40-50 years is a long time for exaggerations and fictions to make their way in. Second, who is to say we should take their testimony at face value?”

     I see. So when you say “During my undergraduate years in philosophy, I started out as a Christian apologist and very gradually became a religious skeptic,” I shouldn’t take your testimony at face value.

     If fact, given how “notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony is,” you should systematically distrust your own recollection of your undergraduate studies. You *think* you remember who your philosophy profs. were, but your firsthand observations are notoriously unreliable. Maybe you really majored in ballet, and just forgot.

     BTW, if testimonial evidence is notoriously unreliable, then that sinks Hume’s appeal to uniform experience against the occurrence of miracles.
112. Ryan says:

     March 7, 2013 at 11:02 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     First, there are two aspects to understanding the meaning of a word: the dictionary definition and the connotation. This is philosophy of language or just plain common sense grammar 101. In the context of philosophy or logical argument, assertion means just what I said it does. Go look it up.

     Second, the time lapse between when the gospels were written and the events they purport to describe isn’t the only reason I doubt their divine authority. It’s one among many reasons. Here’s a sample: Why should we regard the bible as divinely authored? What is the criteria for establishing which books belong in the bible and which don’t. It was arbitrary. What evidence do we have to indicate these people were actually visited by a supreme being? Is it more likely that they developed this religion during a time when superstitious belief systems were commonly employed as a means to explain your world, provide comfort and hope to fearful, ignorant people, to establish a cultural identity? Or do we really think God spoke to these people and that the 1,000 other religions and 10,000 other Gods that man has invented are all false except one? Isn’t the cultural bias seen in the bible evidence that it’s man that made God in his image, and not the other way around? For example, the divine sanctioning of slavery, genocide, rape, the subordination of women – which one would expect in the highly patriarchal, violent societies that existed during biblical times…all of these attributes of the bible bear the stamp of the culture in which the bible was created. If God really inspired men to write a book, you would expect it to not be so subject to cultural forces and biases. The better explanation, given the small scope, the biases, the seemingly evil divine commands, the lack of evidence to establish the extraordinary supernatural claims, is that its man-made. How is this a silly conclusion?
113. steve hays says:

     March 7, 2013 at 11:09 am

     Like or Dislike: 1

     Ryan says:

     “The gospels being penned well after the events they describe leaves room for fictions to creep in…”

     All you’ve done is to repeat the same non sequitur.

     “While the scant evidence…”

     Which begs the question.

     “And the supernatural claims require all the more evidence before warranting any degree of belief, especially strong belief.”

     Once again, you’re assuming what you need to prove.

     “All ribbing aside, you stink at this analytic argumentation thing.”

     Considering the fact that you don’t argue for your ambitious claims, that’s unintentionally comical.

     “The fawn is just one example among countless others of senseless suffering that doesn’t discriminate.”

     I just demonstrated that it’s not a case of “senseless suffering.” You need to keep up with the actual state of the argument, rather than just repeating your refuted assertions.

     “Is it not clear that God – if he is infinitely powerful – could have initiated a forest fire while clearing out the life within it?”

     Now you’re changing the subject. You originally alleged gratuitous animal suffering. But if, according to fire ecology, forest fires contribute to the overall health of the ecosystem, then that’s not gratuitous, but functional.

     BTW, some animals benefit from the death of other animals. So divinely protecting animals from forest fires would harm other animals. It’s called the balance of nature.

     “We’re not apes. We’re primates.”

     Primates include homo sapiens. You need to brush up on the taxonomic classification of Hominidae.

     “If there’s an all-good, all-powerful God, then he would be compelled to prevent any evil/suffering he could unless he couldn’t without thereby losing a greater good or permitting an evil equally bad or worse. Do you agree with this?”

     Unless suffering is evil, suffering doesn’t even pose prima facie evidence against the existence of a good God.
114. Ryan says:

     March 7, 2013 at 11:22 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Steve,

     I honestly don’t have time to pettifog ad infinitum with you. This will be my last response to you.

     My list wasn’t exhaustive. I’ve read some others, Platinga included, Zagzebski, N.T. Wright, and others, enough that I’ve got a decent grasp on some of the best arguments/perspectives each side has to offer.

     I don’t consult conservative biblical scholars often. They’re biased and will of course interpret evidence through the a priori belief that scriptures are divinely inspired and the traditional views of biblical authorship are true, and therefore we must cherry-pick evidence that confirms our unalterable beliefs.

     Okay, for the burden of proof thing. One last time. I don’t mean to say someone denying a claim has no obligation to provide supporting reasons. What I mean to say is, simply because one can’t definitively disprove a claim, doesn’t by default make the claimant the winner. If you’re making a claim X, it makes no sense to say it’s true because it can’t be disproven. There is an onus on you to provide evidence for it. What evidence is there really for the divine authority of the bible? Enough to warrant strong, certain belief? I’ve offered plenty of cogent, evidence based reasons issuing from anthropology, psychology, history, etc. for doubting the divine authority of the bible. Why not respond to those reasons instead of childishly insisting I’ve provided no reason for doubting the bible’s authority?

     For the love of God (pardon the phrasing), please look up why you can’t prove a universal negative. It’s impossible!

     The whole point about eyewitness testimony is to say that 40 years later, I bet I wouldn’t accurately recall details from college very well. Second, we don’t even know who wrote the four gospels with any high degree of certainty. To say it’s eyewitness testimony for sure is hasty and too strong a conclusion given the scant evidence. Third, we don’t know whether they had reason to lie.

     This has…
115. steve hays says:

     March 7, 2013 at 11:22 am

     Like or Dislike: 1

     Ryan says:

     “In the context of philosophy or logical argument, assertion means just what I said it does. Go look it up.”

     It means you’re begging key questions every step of the way.

     “What is the criteria for establishing which books belong in the bible and which don’t. It was arbitrary”

     Your fact free assertion.

     “Is it more likely that they developed this religion during a time when superstitious belief systems were commonly employed as a means to explain your world, provide comfort and hope to fearful, ignorant people, to establish a cultural identity?”

     Since you furnish no supporting argument, why is that more likely?

     “For example, the divine sanctioning of slavery, genocide, rape, the subordination of women – which one would expect in the highly patriarchal, violent societies that existed during biblical times…all of these attributes of the bible bear the stamp of the culture in which the bible was created. If God really inspired men to write a book, you would expect it to not be so subject to cultural forces and biases. The better explanation, given the small scope, the biases, the seemingly evil divine commands…”

     i) You haven’t bothered to exegete the texts you’re alluding to.

     ii) You can only classify the commands as evil if you can justify objective moral norms on secular grounds. But many atheist philosophers admit to being moral relativists or nihilists.

     iii) From your naturalistic evolutionary standpoint, why is simian patriarchy wrong? Likewise, why is it wrong for primates to rape, kill, or enslave other primates? Doesn’t that sort of thing happen in the wild on a regular basis?
116. Ryan says:

     March 7, 2013 at 11:35 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Steve,

     I feel no shame in saying you’re intolerably uneducated, willfully ignorant , and small-minded.

     How should I back up assertions in an online forum that historians, anthropologists, secular biblical scholars, etc. know to be the case?

     Is your study of history and anthropology so lacking that you don’t know superstition was commonly used throughout human history to explain natural phenomenon, to predict the future and try to influence it, and often to make life more palatable? How should I prove something like this? Would a reference to a world history textbook work? Why not try reading one on your own instead of insisting I provide evidence of claims every educated, literate person knows to be true?

     The process of cannonization was gradual and lacks definite criteria. This is indisputably true. Objects at rest tend to remain at rest. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Fact free assertion, sir! I deny Newton’s 1st Law of Motion because you didn’t support it with facts! Magically make facts appear in the online forum for propositions that are well-attested and generally accepted, or I deny it! This is about how ridiculous you sound.

     Exegesis is often a fancy word for unbalanced rationalization. Exegete Numbers 21:17-18 & Exodus 21:20 for me. No rationalization can explain what is prima facie evil divine commands.

     We’ve already talked about ethics. I gave a pretty long explanation earlier of how normativity can exist apart from divine legislation. You then insisted I did not, closed your eyes and cried: fact free assertion, as is your custom.

     You live in a very small world, Steve. Put down the bible for a second – even though I think it’s an interesting book – and pick up a book on anthropology, world history, perhaps psychology, maybe history of science, maybe some secular ethics, and stop bothering people who read and reflected before forcing their ill-informed, unbalanced, self-serving beliefs on an unfortunate public.
117. steve hays says:

     March 7, 2013 at 12:24 pm

     Like or Dislike: 1

     Ryan says:

     “My list wasn’t exhaustive. I’ve read some others, Platinga included, Zagzebski, N.T. Wright, and others, enough that I’ve got a decent grasp on some of the best arguments/perspectives each side has to offer.”

     You can’t know the best arguments you never bothered to read.

     “I don’t consult conservative biblical scholars often.”

     So by your own admission, you have a double standard. You don’t “expose yourself to and deal with the strongest arguments on the other side of your position.” In fact, you avoid it. Classic duplicity. You never had the good faith intention of honoring the principle you urge on others.

     “They’re biased and will of course interpret evidence through the a priori belief that scriptures are divinely inspired and the traditional views of biblical authorship are true, and therefore we must cherry-pick evidence that confirms our unalterable beliefs.”

     Unbelievers are biased and will of course interpret evidence through their a priori commitment to methodological naturalism, and therefore preemptively exclude any and all evidence that conflicts with their unalterable adherence to atheism.

     “Why not respond to those reasons instead of childishly insisting I’ve provided no reason for doubting the bible’s authority?”

     You haven’t given reasons–you’ve given assertions. Why should I respond to your nonexistent arguments?

     “Please look up why you can’t prove a universal negative. It’s impossible!”

     Since I haven’t used that argument, your complaint is confused.

     “The whole point about eyewitness testimony is to say that 40 years later, I bet I wouldn’t accurately recall details from college very well.”

     What makes you think we can remember something 20 years later, but not 40 years later? For instance, Bart Ehrman talks about his religious upbringing. He’s 57. He’s referring to things that happened when he was a teenager. Should we automatically discount his testimony?
118. Ryan says:

     March 7, 2013 at 1:54 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Every time you post you betray more of your ignorance on philosophy, philosophy of science, informal logic, anthropology, history, and most other forms of systematic inquiry. Yours is a pseudointellectualism common among the uneducated faithful, where dogmatic beliefs are dressed up in inaccurately employed terms and concepts borrowed from analytic philosophy and conservative biblical scholars.

     You don’t know what I have or haven’t read. This is a babyish inference that has nothing to do with our devolved discussion.

     Conservative biblical scholars don’t offer the strongest, most objective or impartial arguments for Christianity. I and many others don’t take their analyses seriously because they’ve committed themselves to a particular worldview regardless of what the evidence suggests. Saying that since I won’t entertain many of their positions that I’m unwilling to consider the strongest positions is like saying that my unwillingness to entertain astrology or flat earth theories (yes, there is a flat earth society still in existence thanks to religious extremism detached from reality) means that I’m unwilling to entertain the possibility that they’re right. Science has borne out theories and experiments that cast very strong doubt on both, so I don’t need to read every article that any lunatic puts out about subjects they know almost nothing about.

     By the way, methodological naturalism is where one assumes for practical purposes that only natural causes exist for natural events. It’s how we do science. It doesn’t mean one is philosophically committed to the metaphysical claim that only the material/natural universe exists. I believe the phrase you’re looking for is philosophical naturalism. Seriously, pick up a book on this. I recommend Eugenie Scott’s: Evolution vs Creationism. She goes over philosophy of science in a way accessible to laymen. It would knock out two birds with one stone, science and philosophy education.
119. Ryan says:

     March 7, 2013 at 1:57 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Seriously man, I’m done wasting my time. You have an annoying habit of ripping one part of my post out, isolating it from my entire point, attacking only that one small aspect of my point, and proclaiming some delusional victory. I nor anyone else can reason with unreasonable people.

     I think Christianity can be made into a reasonable faith, and I’ve met plenty of people who do it, including the hosts of this forum. You are not one of them, sir.
120. steve hays says:

     March 7, 2013 at 2:31 pm

     Like or Dislike: 1

     Ryan

     “You don’t know what I have or haven’t read. This is a babyish inference that has nothing to do with our devolved discussion.”

     I haven’t inferred anything. I asked you. You admit that you’ve only read a few current Christian philosophers, and that you rarely read conservative Bible scholars. Try to keep track of your own concessions.

     “Conservative biblical scholars don’t offer the strongest, most objective or impartial arguments for Christianity.”

     Since, by your own admission, you rarely read them, your prejudgment is, by definition, ignorant.

     “I and many others don’t take their analyses seriously because they’ve committed themselves to a particular worldview regardless of what the evidence suggests.”

     And unbelievers use their precommitment to methodological naturalism to screen out the counterevidence.

     “Saying that since I won’t entertain many of their positions that I’m unwilling to consider the strongest positions is like saying that my unwillingness to entertain astrology or flat
     earth theories (yes, there is a flat earth society still in existence thanks to religious extremism detached from reality) means that I’m unwilling to entertain the possibility that they’re right.”

     Since you deliberately insulate yourself from the best opposing arguments, your unwillingness reflects self-reinforcing ignorance.

     “By the way, methodological naturalism is where one assumes for practical purposes that only natural causes exist for natural events. It’s how we do science.”

     No, that’s how atheists do science.

     “It doesn’t mean one is philosophically committed to the metaphysical claim that only the material/natural universe exists. I believe the phrase you’re looking for is philosophical naturalism. Seriously, pick up a book on this.”

     You have a habit of attacking arguments I didn’t use. This reflects an inability to put your cue cards down and think through objections on your own.
121. steve hays says:

     March 7, 2013 at 2:33 pm

     Like or Dislike: 1

     Cont. “Every time you post you betray more of your ignorance on philosophy, philosophy of science, informal logic, anthropology, history, and most other forms of systematic inquiry. Yours is a pseudointellectualism common among the uneducated faithful, where dogmatic beliefs are dressed up in inaccurately employed terms and concepts borrowed from analytic philosophy and conservative biblical scholars.”

     And you constantly resort to vacuous rhetorical bravado to fill the gaps for your lack of reason and evidence.

     “I recommend Eugenie Scott’s: Evolution vs Creationism. She goes over philosophy of science in a way accessible to laymen.”

     Well, that certainly reveals the level at which you operate.
122. Ryan says:

     March 7, 2013 at 9:54 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Chad,

     I’m not trying to be pedantic, but let’s work through this using the actual definitions in logic.

     Rowe’s syllogism is valid, in the strict sense of the word. Validity in logic only refers to relationships between premise and conclusion. An argument is valid if a conclusion is logically entailed by the premise(s). Validity doesn’t address whether premises are true…it only deals with the relationship between premise and conclusion. The word ‘sound’ in logic means that an argument is valid and the premises are true.

     Rowe’s argument, to be sure, is valid. You question whether it is sound.

     Let me lay it out in shortened form again:

     #1 An all-good, all-powerful God would prevent any evil/suffering he couldn’t unless he couldn’t without thereby losing a greater good or permitting evil/suffering equally bad or worse.

     #2 Evil occurs in degrees beyond what’s necessary to promote a greater good or prevent evil/suffering equally bad or worse.

     #3 Therefore, God does not exist.

     Let me ask, do you reject #1, and if so, why?

     I already know that you reject #2, basically because we are finite beings who can’t possibly know whether a seemingly pointless case of suffering might have been necessary for some larger plan that may promote greater good or prevent greater sufferings.

     You’re right, we can’t know for sure. The best we can do is gauge what’s plausible given what we know. We have to use induction. The fawn in a forest fire seems on it’s face to be the sort of suffering that could easily be prevented without foiling some greater plan or permitting a worse suffering. It’s logically possible that it’s necessary for some greater good, of course. But given what we know, what’s more plausible, affirming that premise or denying it?

     Since you already believe in God, it’s easy for you to have faith that you lack sufficient foresight to understand how seemingly pointless suffering might fit into a larger plan that…
123. Ryan says:

     March 7, 2013 at 10:05 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     So in your mind, Rowe’s objection doesn’t bother you.

     But for those of us who don’t share you belief…for those of us who find the evidence for God’s existence lacking, we are persuaded premise #2′s truth. Natural forces beyond our control inflict suffering without discriminating on the just or unjust, and it’s hard to see how it’s necessary to obtain some unknown greater good. What we see with our own senses is indiscriminate infliction of suffering.

     I understand why someone who already believes in God might not be too troubled with premise #2, unless the suffering hits close to home.

     Keep in mind, this is one small reason why I doubt that God exists. I’ve laid out some other reasons, and if you’d like, we can discuss those later.

     By the way, while I’d rather not chat with Steve anymore, something important needs to be clarified.

     Science has to be done under the assumption of methodological naturalism. Let me define.

     Philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical belief that only the material/natural universe exists.

     Methodological naturalism is a method of assuming – for practical purposes – that only material causes exist for material events. You do this in science. When you’re not doing science, you can believe in supernatural causes/realities all you like. Here’s why you must be a methodological naturalist in science.

     Science can only deal with natural causes. Why? Because science often makes it’s most important discoveries by holding variables constant (dependent variable), manipulating one variable (independent variable), and testing for the manipulated variables’ effect. Here’s a quick example:

     In a chemical reaction, to find how one substance A in the reaction affects reaction rate, we hold the other substances constant while changing the variable to be tested. In this way, we test for the effects of A on the reaction rate.

     God, or any other supernatural force, can’t be held constant to test for it’s…
124. Ryan says:

     March 7, 2013 at 10:06 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     effect. It’s that simple.
125. Ryan says:

     March 7, 2013 at 10:32 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     One small correction. I meant to list the reaction rate as the dependent variable, not label the variables held constant as the dependent variable. The dependent variable is what you measure, and the independent variable is what is changed that will exert an effect on the dependent variable, which is then measured.

     It should be easy to see now why science isn’t equipped and never could be equipped to deal with supernatural causes.
126. TL says:

     March 7, 2013 at 10:33 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     I’m just stopping by and noticing the discussion about belief in God. And Ryan, I just wanted to point out to you that you cannot find God by logic. The facts are that you cannot determine anyone’s existence that you have never met, by mere imperfect human logic. To know for certain whether someone exists or not we must meet them ourselves or be told by someone else who has met them.

     When I met God, in my case, it was not because I was searching for Him. Rather I was searching for meaning to life. And God sought me to suggest to me that He was waiting to hear from me. This may seem too simplistic to you now. But some day, you may rethink all this.

     When I sincerely reached out to God, He came to me and touched my life. God loves us but will not push Himself on us. Instead He sent His only Son to provide a pathway of reconciliation for those amongst us who will look honestly at our lives and realize our great need of God’s love and help.
127. Ryan says:

     March 7, 2013 at 10:54 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     TL,

     I don’t doubt your sincerity, or that God has helped you. I wouldn’t deny your experience. And I don’t think much harm comes from it. I know plenty of good, caring people who are believers, my parents included. They’re some of the most selfless, giving people I know.

     But my parents do have strange beliefs about homosexuality and evolution/age of the earth. I’m more concerned about the former, but still the latter damages science education/understanding and comes with it’s own personal costs.

     To focus on the most important thing, I just think belief in God is irrelevant. That’s why I may not change my mind, unless I’m convinced by the arguments or evidence, that is.

     I don’t need God to know right from wrong, to know why civil society, solidarity, cooperation and fair play are preferable to a state of nature where it’s all against all.

     Not every person of faith does this, but many are convinced – by faith – to regard supernatural beliefs as more important than right action and good character. It’s hard to see why the objects of one’s supernatural beliefs should be the criteria by which one is deemed fit for eternal punishment or reward. Right action and character is fit for moral judgment; supernatural belief doesn’t seem to be.

     And why would God care if I was sincere in my investigative efforts and came to the conclusion that the evidence simply isn’t there to warrant belief? Would he punish me for having integrity and choosing not to be a hypocrite? Is it just or fair to use sincere lack of belief as a reason to banish a person to hell for eternity?

     God wouldn’t be just or all-good if his salvation criteria were arbitrary or capricious. To be sure, basing eternal reward/punishment on whether you believe in God is arbitrary. We don’t even have full control over what we believe…psychology/sociology tells us this. Where you’re born has a lot to do with which religion you end up adopting. Statistics don’t lie.
128. Ryan says:

     March 7, 2013 at 10:57 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     So, I’m not worried. God might exist, I have some good reasons to doubt that an all-perfect, powerful one exists, but if he does, I feel confident that he’s misrepresented by scripture and by those who would use scripture to presume to know the mind and will of God.

     So, I’m glad it makes you happy. For me personally, it’s just not important. I discuss it because of the way it can cloud some folks’ judgment. As the physicist Stephen Weinburg said: “The good will do the best they can, the bad will do the worst they can, but if you want a good person to do bad things, you’ll need religion.”
129. GRE says:

     March 7, 2013 at 11:24 pm

     Like or Dislike: 1

     Ryan said:

     “I feel no shame in saying you’re intolerably uneducated, willfully ignorant , and small-minded.”

     Empty words from an empty collection of temporarily ambulatory bags of chemicals. Your rhetoric was exposed for the ignorant farce that it is and all you have left is a petty vindictiveness. What is it about atheism that engenders such profoundly immature behavior? How hard is it to admit you haven’t really studied these issues in any serious detail and that Steve Hays’ competency and reading eclipses yours? The hubris might otherwise be incredible, were it not so common among atheists.
130. TL says:

     March 7, 2013 at 11:28 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan,
     Thank you for answering. I didn’t really expect an answer. Was just on my way to bed and noticed something in my inbox.

     ”Not every person of faith does this, but many are convinced – by faith – to regard supernatural beliefs as more important to right action and good character.”

     It is true that there are some people like that. Humans are interesting. There are all kinds. Personally, I believe that if one wants supernatural elements in one’s life, they need to seek to be a person of good character exemplified by right and good actions and deeds. I also believe that a real relationship with the Lord is the best way to find out what comprises good character and have God’s help in attaining it and living it. It’s not as easy as one might think.

     ”And why would God care if I was sincere in my investigative efforts and came to the conclusion that the evidence simply isn’t there to warrant belief?”

     I believe that God loves everyone and desires everyone to come to the knowledge of the truth and to experience life to the fullest as well as an eternity with Him. So God does care. God also knows that each person has a choice. The choice is fairly simple. We can choose to reach out to God, acknowledge our human frailties, weaknesses and failures and ask for His healing and empowerment to do better. And thus, choose life and eternity with God. Or we can choose to go it on our own apart from God. God doesn’t punish us for our choice. Living without God is a punishment we choose ourselves. Having lived with an ever growing personal relationship with God, I cannot imagine the hell of living without God’s touch and help in my life.

     As long as you are alive, you have time to think about this and make your choice. You sound like a nice person with perhaps some pain in your life. I hope that you may change your mind some day soon and just start talking to God and ask Him what life for you would be like with Him.
131. TL says:

     March 7, 2013 at 11:43 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “So, I’m not worried. God might exist, I have some good reasons to doubt that an all-perfect, powerful one exists, but if he does, I feel confident that he’s misrepresented by scripture and by those who would use scripture to presume to know the mind and will of God. “

     and BTW, I agree that many misrepresent what Scripture actually says. It is a human weakness. That is why some of us take great pains to faithfully research Scripture and read it as accurately as possible in context, paying attention to cultural influences of the times, and considering the specifics of the original languages. I believe that the Holy Spirit and the Lord help those with this intent. My guess is that God would love for you to be one of those.
132. Ryan says:

     March 8, 2013 at 12:27 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     TL,

     I don’t have a grudge against all of the faithful; only the ones who use faith as a weapon, as a means of control, of piety, and as an excuse to ignore what common sense and science have revealed to be true about our world. There is no secret pain or longing for religion or subconscious hatred of God for me. I doubt that he exists, so the thought doesn’t occur to me to resent him.

     Let me ask you something. I’m not saying it will or that it’s even possible, but pretend that we discovered Jesus’ body. Would you suddenly forget right and wrong, disregard your family and your responsibilities and start screwing around in the streets? Why do you need God to live a good life and know right from wrong? If it helps you, that’s great. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. But is it not possible for Jesus to serve as a role model of what the good life consists of without accepting the questionable belief commitment of viewing him as a God, a savior? Why can some of us get along and do good things and be fulfilled without God?

     The problem with presenting this dilemma as a simple choice between accepting or rejecting God is that it ignores the real question….does God exist!? I don’t think he does based on my honest appraisal of the evidence, of my personal experience, of my reading of the bible and it’s good and bad contents, it’s righteous and wicked divine commands (see Numbers 31:17-18 & Exodus 21:20 for starters – how could an all-good God possibly command such wickedness?), the small scope of the bible, it’s obvious cultural stamp and the cultural prejudices, the apparent lack of divine intervention or presence in the world, the 1,000 different religions and 10,000 different Gods we’ve invented, the fact that most of them were invented during a time when assigning supernatural causes to events was commonplace among a world that lacked science, that lacked answers and understanding…all of this and more leads me to doubt the God hypothesis.
133. Ryan says:

     March 8, 2013 at 12:34 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     And personally, I can’t see how folks take refuge in the scriptures. How do you know the books we’ve got represent God’s actual word? How did the process of cannonization unfold? Is the criteria arbitrary? Is it really likely that the Israelites alone were chosen as God’s people while everyone else got the middle finger? While whole cities who got in their way were destroyed, their children slaughtered, their women raped? Would God really watch the human race slough along in ignorance, dying in their twenties (this was the life expectancy for the majority of our species history), if they survived birth, that is, and suddenly decide to intervene 3,000-4,000 years ago in a small tribe in a small corner of the world?

     I don’t want to overwhelm you with an information dump, but here are some of my big picture objections. And one last thing, if the holy spirit really helped us accurately interpret the bible, why are so many who genuinely believe the holy spirit aids in their interpretation nonetheless come to completely contradictory answers as to what the bible means?
134. mbaker says:

     March 8, 2013 at 1:13 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan,

     You said “And personally, I can’t see how folks take refuge in the scriptures.”

     Wow, if we can’t do that,, what if anything, can we believe in when personal opinion rules the day and that changes so rapidly?

     The last few comments of this thread with you two attacking each other makes me wonder if anyone would even want to follow Christianity or just give up on believing anything entirely.
135. Ryan says:

     March 8, 2013 at 2:40 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     MBaker,

     Well, I put a stop to that once I realized it was fruitless, and of course TL and I are being perfectly civil, which is easy to do when pettifogging, obfuscation and willful ignorance are left out of discussion.

     At the risk of sounding arrogant, because I’m not that learned either, personal opinion might rule the day among the unlearned, but it doesn’t among those of us who’ve studied long enough to realize that – while reality is complex and nuanced – we do know some things with a high degree of confidence.

     And it’s fine if you want to take refuge in the scripture. I personally just don’t understand how you deal with the God depicted in the Old Testament. How do you see him as just or loving? And how does Paul’s attitudes towards women square with our modern moral sentiment that women and men are morally equal and to be judged on merit, not on gender? Do we really think God created the world in seven days, that a talking snake seduced Adam and Eve into eating an apple from a magical tree of knowledge? Doesn’t this sound mythical? Didn’t cultures during the time in which Hebrews live commonly encapsulate values in memorable stories and legends and pass them down through generations as a means of establishing a cultural identity, as a means of communicating their values and concerns? Doesn’t anthropology and history give us a better explanation of what the bible is rather than adopting the approach of accepting the truth of it’s contents at face value? Just a few things to think about.
136. mbaker says:

     March 8, 2013 at 3:41 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan,

     Thanks for your reply. What I would have to say in return is that these are questions and answers you would have to decide for yourself, as we all do.

     I truly wish you well on that. Actually I was once where you are, but after agonizing for years I finally did finally understand it WAS a matter of faith. I would just say this, and perhaps you think it is a weak defense, but if you can have faith in complete strangers stopping at a red light, or staying in their lane on the freeway going 70 miles an hour, and not even questioning whether you will get to and from wok alive, but taking for granted that you will, why can’t you trust the Bible? That’s, (silly as it might seem), is where I had to get.
137. Ryan says:

     March 8, 2013 at 5:08 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     No problem, and I think I’ve arrived at tentative answers I’m satisfied with in terms of accounting for the evidence and for what we know about history, anthropology and all the rest of it.

     When you say that we have faith in others obeying rules and observing common courtesy, you know, the kind that makes civil society possible, something in all our mutual interests, you mean something more like confidence, not the faith in something despite lack of evidence. This is quite a shift in the connotation of the word faith. It’s like telling someone: I have faith in you. It means I believe in your ability to do right.

     The kind of faith you’re asking me to have is to believe the bible is divinely inspired in spite of lack of evidence, to go beyond reason or justification. I have plenty of evidence that I probably won’t get hit on the freeway very often. Observance of common courtesy and rule of law for the sake of mutual interest is one, and the other is I’ve been driving for 15 years and haven’t been hit yet.
138. Chad Dougless says:

     March 8, 2013 at 8:27 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan,

     I don’t know that I can answer every thing in one post, but let’s start with: “The kind of faith you’re asking me to have is to believe the bible is divinely inspired in spite of lack of evidence, to go beyond reason or justification.” You then have to ask yourself, what evidence would you accept that the Bible is divinely inspired?

     The question involving premise 1 is do you define all suffering to be evil? What exactly defines suffering? When we get through those we can analyze the premise of the premise that God is all good and all loving and must only act in accordance with those characteristics. Except we must also account for Justice, Holiness, Mercy, etc. that is God. If God executes Justice upon someone, does this make him less loving? If God executes Mercy upon someone does this make him less loving? Or Just? Or Holy?

     One of the characteristics of God is that He is simple (in that the definition meaning not complex, specifically not being able to be broken into components). So in effect, I do not agree with the premise behind premise 1, simply because it is imprecise and attempts to limit God’s actions in a way that I do not believe that Scripture reveals.

     Now, as far as exegeting Exodus 21:20, which part do you need clarification on? The fact that there were slaves, or that they would be avenged if killed under beatings by their masters?

     In Numbers 31:17-18, which part do you view as evil? The killing of what you no doubt view to be innocents? The saving of the young women to be servants and likely eventually wives to the men? This is primarily a viewpoint issue dealing with the characteristics of God. If you do not believe in God, then nothing I can say will change your viewpoint of Moses’s orders in this chapter of Numbers, or numerous other examples of similar events in the Bible. If you want to address particular points of it, then we can walk through it as I understand the text to be speaking.
139. TL says:

     March 8, 2013 at 9:49 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “Let me ask you something. I’m not saying it will or that it’s even possible, but pretend that we discovered Jesus’ body.”

     Ryan, firstly you are speaking of someone you have never met, whom you do not know. Your ruminations on whether or not God exists are ineffective to those who have met Him. Also, I believe the Scriptures that tell us Jesus’s body was not only not in the tomb after 3 days, but that hundreds of people saw Christ rise up to the heavens. As you know, we celebrate His resurrection yearly.

     “Would you suddenly forget right and wrong, disregard your family and your responsibilities and start screwing around in the streets?”

     Truthfully, there are only a small percentage of people who would do what is good and right if they even knew how to determine that, if they thought there were no spiritual rewards for doing so. Our human laws teach us some things because there are consequences for certain acts. But without that relationship with God Almighty, without knowing His love for us, there is a certain futility to life. Now knowing God in my life, I would never want to live without His presence.

     God answers my prayers though not always in my time perspectives nor in the ways I would conceive. God brings me a peace that really is better than anything this world has to offer. Christ frees and heals my soul from the beating up it gets in this world from wicked and foolish people. And the Holy Spirit empowers me with wisdom to solve what sometimes seems like unsolvable problems. Again, I cannot imagine living without the very real presence of El Shaddai in my life.

     My prayer for you is that you will tire of talking about God, and start talking to God. Let Him answer your questions. He is there waiting to hear from you. That is how I got to know Him.
140. TL says:

     March 8, 2013 at 10:02 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan, I love your questions in post 34. Excellent questions.

     The first question about the OT can be answered when we take into consideration that life in those eras was immoral, the strong and powerful ruled the weaker doing unspeakable things, and Christ had not yet come to provide spiritual healing and deliverance. When a society gave themselves over to obtuse wickedness, they needed to be wiped out to prevent the spreading of the infection. But all is not lost for those souls because when Christ came, Scripture says He went down into Hades for 3 days and nights preaching to those there. History changes with Jesus. Now every soul has the chance in their life time to accept or reject the salvation that Christ offers.

     ”And how does Paul’s attitudes towards women square with our modern moral sentiment that women and men are morally equal and to be judged on merit, not on gender?”

     A great question. May I recommend that you ask that question at Equality Central. http://equalitycentral.com/forum/
141. Ryan says:

     March 8, 2013 at 2:21 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Chad,

     What sort of evidence would persuade me the bible is divinely inspired? First, if God made it clear to us that he authored the book, I would believe it. He hasn’t said anything to me. Second, if the scope was broad, applied to everyone, was ahead of it’s time, didn’t bear the stamp of the culture in which it was written, by it’s limitations, it’s prejudices, etc., didn’t contain evil divine commands (since God is all-good, this is good indication that a book containing evil divine commands is not written by him), wasn’t one among many books that claim to be divinely authored, then I would consider it.

     In Rowe’s premise #1, it’s not relevant whether all suffering is evil. The point Rowe is making is that if there’s an all-good, all powerful good, then by his nature, he would have to prevent any evil OR suffering he could unless he couldn’t do it without preventing a greater good or permitting an evil equally bad or worse. If God didn’t punish the wicked, then he’d be allowing an evil equally bad or worse, because allowing injustice to go unpunished is obviously a greater evil than punishing the wicked. Were talking about the kinds of suffering that don’t involve meting out justice or retribution. The kind of suffering that is random and affects the just and unjust alike. If God is all-good, all-just, wouldn’t he have to prevent arbitrary suffering?

     You may be tempted to respond that many forms of suffering help build character, resilience and make us who we are. I understand that. But it’s clear, to me, at least, that suffering occurs in degrees beyond what’s necessary to build character/resilience. Do you agree?

     I’m disappointed with the exegesis.

     Exodus 21:20-21: “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”
142. Ryan says:

     March 8, 2013 at 2:28 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     I need clarification on why human beings can under some circumstances be regarded as property by Moses and God? And why one is permitted by God to beat them provided they don’t die in a few days?

     Numbers 31: 17-18: “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

     If you read all of Numbers 31, you’ll discover that after Moses and his army carried out the siege against the Midianites, and Moses’ officers reported that they spared the women and children, Moses grew angry, and, speaking on behalf of his and God’s will, declares that the boys need to be killed as well as the women, but Moses and God want them to spare the virgins to “keep for yourselves.” Now, in that time period, it was commonplace to regard women, especially young women and virgins, as the spoils of war to be raped, kept as slaves, or otherwise treated as objects/property. It is very naive – to put it gently – to assume that Moses’ intent was to treat these women gingerly and give them a choice about whether they’ll sleep with their men, marry them or become their servants.

     Additionally, Moses says these people are being punished because the women were seducing his people. Because it was all the woman’s fault, right? The men were helpless victims powerless to the advances of Midianite women. The men were not punished, as far as we know. For this offense, the entire city is wiped off the map, and the virgins are presumably raped. There is very little that creative exegesis can do to make this Old Testament event palatable to our more evolved, modern moral sentiments.
143. Chad Dougless says:

     March 8, 2013 at 3:37 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan,

     Your issue comes where you state “If God is all-good, all-just, wouldn’t he have to prevent arbitrary suffering?” and “But it’s clear, to me, at least, that suffering occurs in degrees beyond what’s necessary to build character/resilience.” That is the crux of your position, one that is based solely on opinion. Where I disagree that suffering occurs in degrees beyond what’s necessary to build character/resilience. You cannot prove your statement, the best either side can offer is anecdotes and hyperbole.

     We simply do not know whether it is true, nor we can reliably observe that it is true because we cannot fully understand the impact of the event. From your viewpoint, it appears random and pointless. From my viewpoint, it appears random and directed. I cannot say who will suffer or how much they will suffer, but I can say that all will suffer in some form or fashion. I cannot ultimately say what will be the product of such suffering for each person, except in Christ (Romans 5:1-5).

     Further, you need to prove this statement: ” There is very little that creative exegesis can do to make this Old Testament event palatable to our more evolved, modern moral sentiments.” You simply are committing chronological snobbery in your viewpoint here.

     Finally, I did not exegete anything, I was curious what parts confused you so that I can discuss them as space is limited. For Exodus 21:20-21 see any of the points that God tells Moses to be mindful of that they were once slaves in Egypt, or to love others, etc. For Numbers 31, we can discuss any number of things ranging from whether Moses should have ordered them all to be killed, or saved all the children, etc. God told them to avenge Israel upon Midian. Did they fully obey His commands? Is this an example of the very thing God warns them about in Deuteronomy repeatedly? Lots of exegetical work to be done.
144. Ryan says:

     March 8, 2013 at 3:58 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     You’re starting to pull a Steve, man.

     I never said we know for sure. I said we can make a judgment call based on what we know. A fawn dying in a forest certainly suffers. This suffering does not build character. Much more suffering of this kind occurs daily. Therefore, I conclude that suffering does occur in degrees beyond what’s necessary for building character, for achieving a greater good, or preventing an evil/suffering just as bad or worse. I understand it’s logically possible that in some strange way these events could be necessary for attaining a greater good, but it seems extremely unlikely. This is not a random opinion. Explain to me how a fawn dying in a forest fire could conceivably serve a greater good, and how this doesn’t seem on the surface like suffering that serves no greater good.

     I spent an entire paragraph providing support for that statement. I’m sorry you missed it. Owning human beings is never right. Beating slaves is never right. Raping women is never right. Indiscriminately slaughtering women and children is never right. Chronological snobbery? Is that what someone 500 years from now could say to justify the contents of Albert Fish’s diary? Albert Fish was a cannibalist who killed kids, cooked and ate them. We wouldn’t need to understand historical/cultural context to know this is wicked. Killing children and eating them is always wicked for all times, just as raping women, killing children, beating slaves, owning human beings is wicked for all people at all times.

     Will you still say I haven’t substantiated by claims and have merely committed chronological snobbery? You guys are really tiring me out. I think we just need to call this one. This isn’t worth the time I’m spending on it.
145. TL says:

     March 8, 2013 at 7:03 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “There is very little that creative exegesis can do to make this Old Testament event palatable to our more evolved, modern moral sentiments.”

     I agree. Did you notice when the changes began to happen in our moral sentiments? That type of thinking continued on for hundreds of years and was still happening when the Messiah came. God works with us where we are. After Christ came and revealed what real love was like, then in a few more hundred years (and for many it was immediately) people began to see and change. Some things take longer than others.
146. mbaker says:

     March 8, 2013 at 9:00 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan,

     While we don’t agree on whether the Bible is God’s divine word, (which I do), I still wish you His blessings in finding the answers you need from our Lord.

     He does say ” Seek and you shall find”. Maybe no one has convinced you here, but that’s okay. God often reveals Himself in unexpected ways, as someone else has already noted. I know that was true for me, and still is.

     God bless.
147. steve hays says:

     March 9, 2013 at 3:32 pm

     Like or Dislike: 3

     R y a n s a y s :

     “B y t h e w a y , w h i l e I’ d r a t h e r n o t c h a t w i t h S t e v e a n y m o r e …”

     Constantly losing the argument can, indeed, have that effect.

     “… s o m e t h i n g i m p o r t a n t n e e d s t o b e c l a r i f i e d . S c i e n c e h a s t o b e d o n e u n d e r t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f m e t h o d o l o g i c a l n a t u r a l i s m . L e t m e d e f i n e . P h i l o s o p h i c a l n a t u r a l i s m i s a m e t a p h y s i c a l b e l i e f t h a t o n l y t h e m a t e r i a l / n a t u r a l u n i v e r s e e x i s t s . M e t h o d o l o g i c a l n a t u r a l i s m i s a m e t h o d o f a s s u m i n g , f o r p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s , t h a t o n l y m a t e r i a l c a u s e s e x i s t f o r m a t e r i a l e v e n t s .”

     Ryan acts as if this is breaking news. Ryan, just because you learned something doesn’t make it new to the rest of us.

     “Y o u d o t h i s i n s c i e n c e .”

     This is just a made-up rule, which Ryan dutifully parrots from his godless drillmasters. That, however, is not how real scientists have to do science. Take medical science. Rex Gardner, Kenneth McAll, M. Scott Peck, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones were all distinguished physicians.

     They were content with natural causes as long as natural causes were sufficient to explain the condition of the patient. But when natural causes were not the best explanation, they were open to supernatural causes.

     Likewise, Rupert Sheldrake and Mario Beauregard are distinguished scientists. They are satisfied with material causes so long as that adequately explains the phenomenon in question. But when material causes are not the best explanation, they consider immaterial causes.
148. steve hays says:

     March 9, 2013 at 3:33 pm

     Like or Dislike: 3

     “ W h e n y o u’r e n o t d o i n g s c i e n c e , y o u c a n b e l i e v e i n s u p e r n a t u r a l c a u s e s / r e a l i t i e s a l l y o u l i k e .”

     Another one of Ryan’s problems, which I’ve let slide until now, is his failure to distinguish between natural explanations and naturalistic explanations. Natural explanations are consistent with Christian theology. Christian theology has a doctrine of ordinary providence. Second causes. That’s quite different from naturalism.

     ”H e r e’ s w h y y o u m u s t b e a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l n a t u r a l i s t i n s c i e n c e . S c i e n c e c a n o n l y d e a l w i t h n a t u r a l c a u s e s . W h y ? B e c a u s e s c i e n c e o f t e n m a k e s i t’ s m o s t i m p o r t a n t d i s c o v e r i e s b y h o l d i n g v a r i a b l e s c o n s t a n t ( d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e ) , m a n i p u l a t i n g o n e v a r i a b l e ( i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e ) , a n d t e s t i n g f o r t h e m a n i p u l a t e d v a r i a b l e s’ e f f e c t .”

     That’s an artificially narrow definition of the scientific method. One that applies in the laboratory, with control groups, double-blind experiments, &c.

     That works for some things. But science also involves discovering the world as it comes to us. Field observations. Nature in the raw. You can’t squeeze the world into a laboratory.
149. steve hays says:

     March 9, 2013 at 3:34 pm

     Like or Dislike: 3

     “G o d , o r a n y o t h e r s u p e r n a t u r a l f o r c e , c a n’ t b e h e l d c o n s t a n t t o t e s t f o r i t’s e f f e c t . I t’ s t h a t s i m p l e .”

     i) The obvious problem with that dictate is that it’s viciously circular and self-stultifying. Unless you already know that all natural events are produced by physical causes, it is prejudicial and willfully ignorant to limit the range of acceptable explanations to natural (much less naturalistic) explanations. That’s getting ahead of yourself. Pretending that you know the answer before the evidence is in.

     ii) Let’s take a concrete example. In 2 Kgs 19 (par. 2 Chron 32; Isa 37), the Assyrian army is defeated in answer to prayer. In addition, Sennacherib will be assassinated as a delayed effect of the same prayer.

     Now, the account doesn’t say how, exactly, God destroyed the Assyrian army. It merely mentions the agent of destruction: the Angel of the Lord. The angel might have destroyed the army directly. However, according to 1 Chron 21, the angel can kill indirectly by instigating a deadly plague. Some scholars think the army died from a tropical form of bacillary dysentery, which has a three-day incubation period.
150. steve hays says:

     March 9, 2013 at 3:35 pm

     Like or Dislike: 3

     Suppose that’s how they died. Suppose a medical examiner autopsied the casualties. If all he had to go by were the corpses, he’d conclude that they died of natural causes: a virulent strain of dysentery.

     Likewise, Sennacherib was later assassinated. Put to the sword. If his corpse were autopsied, the cause of death would be physical. Maybe the sword pieced a vital organ, or maybe he bled to death.

     In both cases you could give a complete physical description of the cause, yet in both cases, a complete physical description of the cause would be an incomplete explanation. For back of the natural causes was prayer. They died in answer to prayer.

     If a scientific investigator knew about the prayers, if he knew about the timing of the prayers in relation to the opportune timing of the outcome, his explanation would have to include divine agency in response to prayer. Ryan can only close his mind to that explanation on pain of rejecting the correct explanation. Ryan will always opt for a false, naturalistic explanation in preference to a factual, supernatural explanation.
151. ted says:

     March 9, 2013 at 8:33 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Sadly, Ryan can’t reason so he becomes unreasonable. He acts flabbergasted that others don’t see what’s so obvious to him, yet what’s obvious to him isn’t obvious to others because Ryan’s arguments are deficient.Steve Hays is running cycles around Ryan.When he can’t counter Steve Hays’s points or other people’s points Ryan throws up his hands and leaves in a huff but without conceding the argument. It’s all emotional. Let’s hope he will reconsider and come back to offer sound and reasoned argumentation though. That would be better people like me who are agnostic.
152. Ryan says:

     March 9, 2013 at 10:43 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     You remind me of myself when I was an undergraduate freshman studying philosophy after getting a small sampling of knowledge and insight from professors and notable thinkers throughout history. I even used to parrot back small snippets of a person’s response and glibly pick it apart while missing the whole argument.

     Amateur practitioners of philosophy who divorce rational argument too far from reality, who substitute snide one-liners and shameless displays of petty one-up-manship for substantive discussion of issues that actually matter…these are the folks who’ve given philosophy a bad rap.

     Back to the discussion. Let’s try this one more time. I encourage you to add to the discussion instead of posting petty replies that do everything but address the real argument.

     You missed the entire point of my distinction between philosophical and methodological naturalists. Here’s what you originally said:

     “Unbelievers are biased and will of course interpret evidence through their a priori commitment to methodological naturalism, and therefore preemptively exclude any and all evidence that conflicts with their unalterable adherence to atheism.”

     Methodological naturalists don’t automatically exclude supernatural explanations. Philosophical naturalists do. Methodological naturalists only exclude supernatural explanations when doing science. A scientists who witnesses a genuine miracle or supernatural occurrence can accept that as an explanation for the event, but will still be a methodological naturalist when they put on their ‘science hat.’

     Contrary to your opinion, the goal of science is to create a body of facts, laws, hypotheses and theories that explain and predict how the universe behaves. Let’s define things carefully so you don’t miss the point. I’m going to try to be nice, difficult though it may be, but you honestly don’t know much about science, so definitions are necessary
153. Ryan says:

     March 9, 2013 at 10:55 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Facts: Confirmed observations. These are observations confirmed many times under similar conditions that become accepted as facts. By themselves, they do little to explain or predict matter’s behavior.

     Hypothesis: Statements of relationships among things, usually taking the form of a hypothetical syllogism, i.e. if…then statements. These statements are testable against experience , and are thus falsifiable.

     Laws: Empirical generalizations about what, under certain conditions, will happen. Think of Newton’s laws of motion, inverse law of gravity, etc.

     Theories: Interconnected combination of facts, laws and tested hypotheses that explains a feature of the natural world.

     So, a methodological naturalist could witness a supernatural event, and identify the supernatural as the cause. Nonetheless, he couldn’t use the cause to inform our scientific body of knowledge. The cause would have to be repeatable, observable to more than just a select few, and it’s effects capable of falsification. The supernatural event could have actually occurred and be true, but science being what it is could not use such an occurrence to create new laws, facts, hypotheses or theories, because these need to be repeatable and capable of being tested against the natural world.

     “If a scientific investigator knew about the prayers, if he knew about the timing of the prayers in relation to the opportune timing of the outcome, his explanation would have to include divine agency in response to prayer.”

     Why would his explanation of the plague have to include prayers? Isn’t it perfectly possible the person who prayed is lying, delusional or mistaken? Or that it’s a coincidence? How would this supernatural explanation, even if it occurred, help us understand our natural world and predict matter’s behavior?
154. Ryan says:

     March 9, 2013 at 11:03 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Do you understand why supernatural explanations can’t be used in science, even if you or I witness them directly? They can’t be repeated, they can’t be tested against experience because we can’t isolate the variable, hold other factors constant and test for the variables effect in the natural world. That doesn’t mean the supernatural isn’t true, it means that science has very little to say about it.

     My characterization of science was not narrow. Isolating variables, holding other factors constant and testing the variables effect on the natural world can and is done outside the laboratory.

     Field and natural experiments involve either controlling for other variables and observing the effects of the variable of interest, or studying all the variables and establishing correlative relationships among them.

     Regardless of the type of experiment/observation, the activity involves holding variables constant, isolating the variable of interest and testing it’s effects. Indirect experiments, the kind that occur in Astronomy and Physics, for example, use indirect experiments all the time. We can confirm the presence of unseen planets by indirectly detecting their gravitational effects on other bodies of mass. We can detect subatomic particles by taking what we know about the known particles, look for anomalies in the data, eliminate other possible explanations and use this to generate more tests.
155. C Michael Patton says:

     March 9, 2013 at 11:09 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan, I don’t know who you are or whose side you are on, but that does not happen on my blog. It is immature, ad hom, childish talk. If you are a regular here, please read the rules. Such preclusions only smack of insecurity, for the faith or against it. Chill. Think about what you are going to say. Go out of your way to be terribly kind. Or please create your own place to blog and comment.
156. Ryan says:

     March 9, 2013 at 11:12 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     The bottom line here is, science can’t deal in supernatural explanations. This doesn’t make the supernatural nonexistent, though.

     Belief in biblical Christianity requires going beyond the evidence to a considerable extent. Eyewitness testimony is not enough. People lie, don’t remember properly, or have ulterior motives. Eyewitnesses wrote the Koran, the Vedas, Homer’s Iliad, the Satanic bible, the epic of gilgamesh, and any other number of creation and supernatural myths issuing from hundreds of ancient societies.

     Moreover, you behave more like a pre-enlightenment century rationalists than an empiricists, or at least adopting a Kantian attitude about compromising between empiricism and rationalism.

     Aristotle thought heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects due to weight differences. Makes good common sense, right? Galileo decided to test this against experience, and discovered that friction, not weight, produces differences in acceleration due to gravitational forces. Experience is the best arbiter of truth.

     Experience and the scientific method have produced exponentially more useful knowledge that explains/predicts the behavior of matter than any other domain of inquiry. It produced clean water, efficient sewage disposal, advances in medicine, a two-fold lifespan within a few centuries, and countless other benefits.

     The majority of western analytic philosophers adopt a Quinian approach to philosophy. They believe philosophy should be subsumed under science, and its primary job should be to supplement and further clarify scientific findings. Reason too far detached from experience is bound to lead to absurd falsity. You need only look to many pre-enlightenment rationalists and the grotesque, superfluous structures of explanation they erected to verify this.
157. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

     March 10, 2013 at 11:30 am

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan,

     I read in a prior comment that you started out intending to become a Christian apologist while in college, but that has obviously changed. Curious, did you grow up in a Christian home with “conservative” Christian parents?
158. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 12:41 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Those were almost my exact words, yes.

     I don’t see why that matters, though. The fact that my beliefs evolved over time isn’t a function of someone leaving a bad taste in my mouth for religion. It’s a function of being exposed to more information and revising my beliefs.

     The only reason I care is because of what religion can sometimes motivate people to do in terms of how they treat homosexuals, their attitude towards science and watering down science education, retarding stem cell research.

     It’s a strange spectacle to observe some of the religious who genuinely believe they’re engaging in honest, intellectual reflection and defense of their beliefs, while they cherry-pick only those concepts from science and analytic philosophy that confirm their beliefs. Not all of the faithful do this, but it seems to be a popular attitude these days.
159. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 5:00 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan says:

     “Amateur practitioners of philosophy…”

     Since Ryan objects to “amateurs” debating these issues, I’m sure he’d be happy to disclosure his academic credentials. Perhaps he can direct us to his academic webpage. Is he a working scientist? A professional philosopher of science? Where can we find his peer-reviewed articles?

     “Methodological naturalists don’t automatically exclude supernatural explanations. Philosophical naturalists do. Methodological naturalists only exclude supernatural explanations when doing science. A scientists who witnesses a genuine miracle or supernatural occurrence can accept that as an explanation for the event, but will still be a methodological naturalist when they put on their ‘science hat.’”

     i) There are secular historians who apply methodological naturalism to historiography. So, no, it’s not confined to science.

     ii) According to eminent philosopher of science Michael Ruse:

     “The methodological naturalist believes that everything in this world goes according to unbroken, blind law. What place then for miracles?” in “Atheism, naturalism and science: three in one?” The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge University Press, 2011), 236.

     His definition is less restrictive than yours. Forgive me for thinking his definition is more authoritative than yours.

     iii) Let’s take some concrete examples. Although you don’t believe in the Bible, we can grant these examples for the sake of argument, to illustrate some basic principles:
160. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 5:01 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     a) Suppose we could load our scientific equipment onto a time machine and travel back to 1C Palestine. Say we attend the wedding at Cana. We could install security cameras to establish a chain of custody for the water pots. We could test the contents of the water pots prior to the wedding to establish that they contained H2O. We could establish that no one tampered with the water pots during the wedding. We could record the conversation between Jesus and Mary. We could establish that after one of the water pots was opened, it contained fermented grape juice. No known natural laws can account for the change. No extrapolation from natural laws can account for the change.

     Why would a scientific investigator be barred from concluding that since there was no plausible natural cause, the cause must have been supernatural?

     b) Or take the raising of Lazarus. We could verify that he was dead. We could take a DNA sample for comparison. We could inspect the tomb to make sure there was no hidden escape route. Our security cameras could confirm the fact that no one entered or left the tomb prior to the raising. We could verify that after 4 days, Lazarus was alive. We could very that all trace of necrosis was gone. We could perform a DNA test to confirm his identity. We could record the prayers, commands, and conversations of Jesus leading up to this outcome.

     No known natural laws can account for the change. No extrapolation from natural laws can account for the change. Why would a scientific investigator be barred from concluding that since there was no plausible natural cause, the cause must have been supernatural?
161. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 5:02 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “Contrary to your opinion, the goal of science is to create a body of facts, laws, hypotheses and theories that explain and predict how the universe behaves.’

     I didn’t say anything about that one way or the other. However, not every philosopher of science agrees with your definition. Some think the goal of science is to create models rather than a body of facts (e.g. Bas van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism).

     “Let’s define things carefully so you don’t miss the point. I’m going to try to be nice, difficult though it may be, but you honestly don’t know much about science, so definitions are necessary.”

     What follows is Ryan’s effort to demarcate science. However, the demarcation problem is generally considered to be intractable. Because there are so many different branches of science, it doesn’t seem possible to subsume all branches of science under a common set of criteria. Different branches of science have different methods. What works for one branch of science may not work for another. For someone who touts his mastery of the scientific method, Ryan seems to have a very crude, simplistic understanding of the subject.

     “So, a methodological naturalist could witness a supernatural event, and identify the supernatural as the cause. Nonetheless, he couldn’t use the cause to inform our scientific body of knowledge. The cause would have to be repeatable…”

     Is repeatability a criterion in archeology, paleontology, historical geology, forensic anthropology? What kind of repeatability is Ryan alluding to? Repeatable events? Repeatable tests? Those aren’t the same thing.

     “…observable to more than just a select few…”

     Wasn’t evidence for the Higgs boson observed by a select few particle physicists at CERN?
162. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 5:03 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Likewise, what if a large comet or meteorite lands in a remote, sparsely populated wilderness region? What if it flattens trees in a radial pattern? Would it be unscientific for a scientific investigation to attribute the blast pattern to a comet or meteorite because only a “select few” observers saw a bright object descending in the night sky?

     What about rare, localized natural phenomenon–like ball lightning? In the nature of the case, we wouldn’t expect that to be widely observed. Is it therefore unscientific to admit the existence of ball lightning?

     “…and it’s effects capable of falsification.”

     Falsification is a slippery criterion in science. Is Ryan unaware of the literature on that topic?

     “The supernatural event could have actually occurred and be true, but science being what it is could not use such an occurrence to create new laws, facts, hypotheses or theories, because these need to be repeatable and capable of being tested against the natural world.”

     i) Notice the circular or regressive nature of Ryan’s argument. How can you test a scientific claim against the nature world unless you already have some scientific knowledge of the natural world to supply a frame of reference? Or does Ryan think prescientific background knowledge will suffice?

     ii) Why does an event have to give rise to new laws or new theories to be scientifically assessable? If a forensic scientist solves a murder, must his explanation give rise to new laws and theories? Must archeological discoveries give rise to new scientific laws or new scientific theories?

     So many of Ryan’s strictures amount to empty abstractions that lack concrete applicability.

     “Why would his explanation of the plague have to include prayers? Isn’t it perfectly possible the person who prayed is lying, delusional or mistaken?”

     If the prayer was manifestly answered, then he wasn’t lying, delusional or mistaken. Rather, the outcome corroborates the prayer.
163. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 5:04 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “Or that it’s a coincidence?”

     Because it’s gullible to attribute certain conjunctions to mere coincidence. Let’s take some more biblical examples. I realize that Ryan doesn’t believe the Bible, but let’s treat these as hypothetical cases, to illustrate a principle.

     i) Take the death of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. Yes, it could be coincidental that they died a few hours apart. It could be coincidental that they dropped dead right after Peter’s reproof. But if we think Acts 5:1-11 is an accurate account, isn’t that special pleading?

     The account doesn’t say how they died. Suppose they died of a heart attack or stroke. Suppose a coroner autopsied the bodies. He could state the cause of death as stroke or heart attack. He could say they died of natural causes.

     Perhaps, moreover, they both had heart disease. Not only could the coroner state the cause of death, but the cause of the heart attack.

     That would all be true as far as it goes. But it would leave something out. In addition to natural causes, there was a supernatural cause behind the natural causes.

     It’s possible that God directly stopped the heart from beating. Or it could involve a premeditated chain of events. When God planned the world, he planned for Ananias and Sapphira to have an unhealthy diet that contributed to heart disease. And God synchronized the progression of the heart disease with their sin, and Peter’s reproof, so that it all came to a head on that particular day. Perfect timing.

     A full description of what caused their death must include the supernatural as well as the natural factors. By itself, a merely physical description is deficient and misleading.
164. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 5:05 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     ii) Let’s take another example. According to Ezk 13:17-23, it’s possible to kill someone by using witchcraft. Now suppose JAMA or NEJM began publishing peer-reviewed studies documenting a high correlation between death and hexes. The type of evidence wouldn’t be essentially different from other kinds of correlations, like carcinogens. Despite overwhelming statistical evidence, would it be unscientific to conclude that some witches were responsible for murder? What if just following the evidence wherever it leads strongly pointed in that direction? Should we just chalk that up to coincidence? Or would there come a tipping point where the evidence was too weighty to dismiss? I’m using that as a limiting-case for Ryan’s defensive posture.

     “How would this supernatural explanation, even if it occurred, help us understand our natural world and predict matter’s behavior?”

     Must every scientific explanation be predictive? Must archeological or forensic anthropological explanations be predictive?

     “Do you understand why supernatural explanations can’t be used in science, even if you or I witness them directly? They can’t be repeated…”

     Is repeatability a necessary criterion in scientific explanation? Are there no unique events in nature? What about freak mutations (to take one example)?
165. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 5:06 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “…they can’t be tested against experience because we can’t isolate the variable, hold other factors constant and test for the variables effect in the natural world.”

     Don’t we experience many things without isolating one variable while holding other variables constant? Experimental science is not the only form of scientific knowledge. What about observing nature in a state of nature. Leaving nature alone, but providing an accurate description of what happens in nature? One doesn’t have to manipulate nature to have a scientific understanding of how nature operates. Although experimentation may deepen our knowledge of nature, it’s not as if we must always experiment on nature to understand aspects of the nature world.

     What if there are credible reports of ball lightning, even though we can’t reproduce ball lightning in the lab? Does that mean we refuse to classify ball lightning as a scientific phenomenon?

     “My characterization of science was not narrow. Isolating variables, holding other factors constant and testing the variables effect on the natural world can and is done outside the laboratory.”

     I didn’t say that can’t be done outside the lab. I said that can’t always be done outside the lab. Moreover, I said that’s not a necessary condition of scientific investigation.

     “Field and natural experiments involve either controlling for other variables and observing the effects of the variable of interest…”

     Suppose a zoologist studies a wolf pack in the wild. Or a troop of baboons. Suppose he keeps a meticulous record of what he sees. Suppose he goes out of his way not to interject himself into the equation. Keeps his distance. An attentive spectator. Suppose, after two years of painstaking field study, he publishes a description of his findings. He doesn’t propose any new theories, hypotheses, or laws. The publication is purely descriptive. A detailed record of their behavior in their natural environment. Is that unscientific?
166. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 5:07 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “…or studying all the variables and establishing correlative relationships among them.”

     That seems to be a reversal of your original definition.

     “Regardless of the type of experiment/observation, the activity involves holding variables constant, isolating the variable of interest and testing it’s effects.”

     Really? A zoologist who studies a wolf pack in the wild is “holding variables constant, isolating the variable of interest and testing it’s effects”? Seems to me that he’s reporting on what he sees rather than interfering with the natural course of events.

     “Indirect experiments, the kind that occur in Astronomy and Physics, for example, use indirect experiments all the time.”

     Once again, you have a strange habit of disproving objections I never raised in the first place.

     “Eyewitness testimony is not enough. People lie, don’t remember properly, or have ulterior motives.”

     You also have fraud in scientific research.

     “Eyewitnesses wrote the Koran, the Vedas, Homer’s Iliad, the Satanic bible, the epic of Gilgamesh…”

     What’s the basis for your claim?

     “Experience is the best arbiter of truth.”

     Including the argument from religious experience.

     “Experience and the scientific method have produced exponentially more useful knowledge that explains/predicts the behavior of matter than any other domain of inquiry. It produced clean water, efficient sewage disposal, advances in medicine, a two-fold lifespan within a few centuries, and countless other benefits.”

     Which is all consonant with a doctrine of ordinary providence.

     “The majority of western analytic philosophers adopt a Quinian approach to philosophy. They believe philosophy should be subsumed under science, and its primary job should be to supplement and further clarify scientific findings.”

     A hasty generalization. I could cite a host of counterexamples.

     “Reason too far detached from experience is bound to lead to absurd falsity.”

     Which is why atheism is absurd.
167. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 5:07 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Working scientists don’t begin with definitions of science. Rather, they begin with curiosity. They like to figure out how things work. Or figure out what things are made of.

     And working scientists are quite pragmatic. They invent what they need to get what they need.

     Ryan’s dilemma is that he wants to weaponize science to attack Christianity. So he needs to (re)define the scientific method in a way that’s hostile to the admission of supernatural agency in the nature world.

     But in so doing he creates a problem for himself. He’s no longer offering a positive definition of science, but a reactionary definition. Science defining itself in exclusion to divine design or divine causation.

     And the dilemma that generates is that a definition of science that’s hostile to Christianity will be hostile to science! The definition bites itself in the tail. For an exclusionary definition of science excludes certain branches of science, or certain scientific methods and explanations.

     Ryan hates Christianity more than he loves science. That’s why he keeps touting Rowe’s argument about the burning fawn even though Rowe’s argument runs contrary to fire ecology. Ryan would rather discount science (e.g. fire ecology) so that he can cling to the evidential argument from evil. Atheism, not science, is his touchstone.
168. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 5:27 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     I actually published two papers in peer-reviewed journals when I was an undergraduate, not that it makes a difference for our discussion, Steve. I judge amateur status by extreme overconfidence typical of pseudointellectuals and a highly selective understanding of science/philosophy in ways that favor your position.

     Michael Ruse probably defined methodological naturalism different than I do in this context, where I’m distinguishing between those who deny immaterial reality altogether and those who ignore it when constructing scientific explanations. Scientists can still separately believe in the supernatural, but can’t use it in science. The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy draws this same distinction, and calls it “methodological naturalism” and “Metaphysical or philosophical” naturalism. It’s a pretty basic distinction one encounters in introductory studies of philosophy of science.

     In your “water turned to wine” example…first, no reliable evidence exists to suggest this really happened. Second, if one could do all that you asked for, send a scientists back in time, conduct the relevant tests, etc., and the water inexplicably turned to wine, and all other possible natural explanations were eliminated, then he would be perfectly justified in tentatively accepting a supernatural explanation.

     The scientist couldn’t, however, use this to formulate additional scientific theories or laws. What would you call this new law in Chemistry? “Water to Wine – it’s Magic!” How would it help us understand natural laws? Predict chemical reactions? The magic could have really happened, but it doesn’t advance the goal of science to incorporate magic water to wine observations into current theories.
169. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 5:37 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     I understand what you mean about the goal of science, Steve. But let’s articulate it more clearly.

     Realism – the position that scientific theories, facts and laws correspond to the way things actually are.

     Anti-realism – the position that scientific theories, facts and laws correspond to ‘useful fictions’ that may or may not be true, but that nonetheless are true in a sense because they predict the behavior of matter.

     The atomic theory of matter was once considered a possible target of this distinction. That is, until we recently viewed actual electrons orbiting a nucleus. In any case, scientific theories, while some may not strictly refer to the underlying nature of reality, nonetheless predict the behavior of matter, and are in some sense true. I never said all sciences use the exact same methods, rather, that all have in common the isolation of variables, holding others constant, and using experience to gauge the effects of variables of interest. Most scientists and philosophers of science doubt the possibility of reducing all of scientific inquiry to the subject of physics. Physics, after all, underlies everything, since everything is composed of matter. I suggest you listen more closely to what was actually said next time. Pointless jabs that create more heat than light, aren’t they?

     By repeatable, I mean that another researcher or scientists could conduct the same line of inquiry under similar conditions and arrive at the same observation or conclusion. Is this confusing? This can and should be expected to occur in any scientific or systematic domain of inquiry, including archaeology or history.

     What I meant by a select few is one or two people who observed something, but the observation can’t be replicated by creating the same conditions. Physicists all over the world can ‘recreate’ the conditions that gave rise to the Higgs Boson. Your example is very silly.
170. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 5:50 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “Likewise, what if a large comet or meteorite lands in a remote, sparsely populated wilderness region? What if it flattens trees in a radial pattern? Would it be unscientific for a scientific investigation to attribute the blast pattern to a comet or meteorite because only a “select few” observers saw a bright object descending in the night sky?”

     Steve, this example sucks, man! Science doesn’t conduct investigation based solely on eyewitness observation. They could search for a meteorite impact site, for blast patterns that one would expect from a meteorite, for applying what is already known about meteorite impacts, acceleration, the forces involved, etc.

     “Falsification is a slippery criterion in science. Is Ryan unaware of the literature on that topic?”

     I didn’t say that was the sole criteria for what counts as science. Karl Popper introduced this concept. It’s a crucial feature of scientific explanations, but isn’t a sufficient one.

     “Notice the circular or regressive nature of Ryan’s argument. How can you test a scientific claim against the nature world unless you already have some scientific knowledge of the natural world to supply a frame of reference? Or does Ryan think prescientific background knowledge will suffice?”

     The frame of reference consists of simpler scientific ideas/theories that have been proven correct by experience. Why is this difficult to understand? Galileo’s experiments with gravitational acceleration didn’t require knowledge of some magical ‘given’ that is known apart from experience. Only folks who anchor on philosophy and ignore other disciplines are confused about how this works.
171. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 5:56 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “Why does an event have to give rise to new laws or new theories to be scientifically assessable? If a forensic scientist solves a murder, must his explanation give rise to new laws and theories? Must archeological discoveries give rise to new scientific laws or new scientific theories?”

     “Accessible.” A forensic scientist won’t identify the cause of death as ‘Lightning Strike Via God.” He/she would give a physical description based on evidence that could be replicated under similar conditions. This isn’t a hard concept to wrap your head around. Most of your examples are answered easily enough. As long as a researcher can replicate the conditions that gave rise to the observation, and observe the same thing, it can count as scientific. Most of these supernatural events you reference are not of this type.

     “So many of Ryan’s strictures amount to empty abstractions that lack concrete applicability.”

     Really? Yikes, please read more about science, less about theology and philosophy. I hope my previous example illustrated what I mean when I say that scientific conclusions have to be capable of being replicated by other researchers in order to verify the findings.

     “If the prayer was manifestly answered, then he wasn’t lying, delusional or mistaken. Rather, the outcome corroborates the prayer.”

     If…if the prayer was answered. Do we know if the prayer even took place? How many people witnessed the prayer? Was the society in which this account comes out of notorious for attributing natural events to divine causation? Were they illiterate? Fearful? Inclined to accept supernatural explanations over ordinary ones? These observations should diminish our degree of confidence in their testimony, right?
172. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 6:03 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “That would all be true as far as it goes. But it would leave something out….In addition to natural causes, there was a supernatural cause behind the natural causes.
     It’s possible that God directly stopped the heart from beating. Or it could involve a premeditated chain of events. When God planned the world, he planned for Ananias and Sapphira to have an unhealthy diet that contributed to heart disease.”

     Wow, were did all these assumptions come from? How do you know any of this really happened?

     “What if just following the evidence wherever it leads strongly pointed in that direction? Should we just chalk that up to coincidence? Or would there come a tipping point where the evidence was too weighty to dismiss? I’m using that as a limiting-case for Ryan’s defensive posture.”

     If a study eliminated other possible variables, held the witchcraft factor constant, and noticed a direct effect exerted on the natural world by witchcraft, then you bet it could be incorporated into science. Of course, the witchcraft could create a physical effect we don’t yet understand. And, most importantly, none such occurrence has been witnessed to date, so your thought experiments – so far detached from reality – are almost pointless.

     “Don’t we experience many things without isolating one variable while holding other variables constant? Experimental science is not the only form of scientific knowledge. What about observing nature in a state of nature. Leaving nature alone, but providing an accurate description of what happens in nature? One doesn’t have to manipulate nature to have a scientific understanding of how nature operates. Although experimentation may deepen our knowledge of nature, it’s not as if we must always experiment on nature to understand aspects of the nature world.”

     Even field studies involve isolating variables or drawing correlative relationships between variables. You know this…right?
173. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 6:10 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “Suppose a zoologist studies a wolf pack in the wild. Or a troop of baboons. Suppose he keeps a meticulous record of what he sees. Suppose he goes out of his way not to interject himself into the equation. Keeps his distance. An attentive spectator. Suppose, after two years of painstaking field study, he publishes a description of his findings. He doesn’t propose any new theories, hypotheses, or laws. The publication is purely descriptive. A detailed record of their behavior in their natural environment. Is that unscientific?”

     No, because when establishing causation, he/she will undoubtedly try to isolate any other possible variable that’s affecting their behavior. Honestly, why is the concept of isolating variables, holding others constant, and testing for the effects of the variable of interest so difficult?

     “That seems to be a reversal of your original definition.”

     That seems to have come right off the hip and doesn’t reference anything that actually happened during our discussion.

     “Really? A zoologist who studies a wolf pack in the wild is “holding variables constant, isolating the variable of interest and testing it’s effects”? Seems to me that he’s reporting on what he sees rather than interfering with the natural course of events.”

     Yes, he is doing exactly that. One need not interfere with nature to eliminate other possible causes for the observed behavior. Man….

     “Once again, you have a strange habit of disproving objections I never raised in the first place.”

     You identified my characterization of the scientific enterprise as narrow and restrictive. I gave an example of how – at core – all scientific investigation shares important features that are absent in other areas, like divine revelation, theology, philosophy.

     “What’s the basis for your claim?”

     Mohammad claims to have been visited by the archangel Gabriel in a cave. Honestly, do you not know any of this?
174. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 6:12 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “Which is why atheism is absurd.”

     Non-sequitur! Annoying, isn’t it?

     So, you really think God’s existence is such a given that anyone who denies it due to a perceived lack of evidence is crazy or willfully ignorant? Is this really what you think?
175. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 6:20 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “Ryan’s dilemma is that he wants to weaponize science to attack Christianity. So he needs to (re)define the scientific method in a way that’s hostile to the admission of supernatural agency in the nature world.”

     Not really, Steve. I have many friends and family members who are Christians, many of whom I respect and admire. It’s your pseudointellectualism that separates you from them, Steve. Science can only “attack” religion when religion makes a claim about the natural world that can be tested against experience. For example, literal interpretations of Genesis are falsified by science.

     “But in so doing he creates a problem for himself. He’s no longer offering a positive definition of science, but a reactionary definition. Science defining itself in exclusion to divine design or divine causation.”

     Science doesn’t say supernatural realms don’t exist. Science says: We aren’t equipped to deal with supernatural claims, to test them, to replicate them and their findings, and to use that to predict the behavior of matter. Your pseudointellectualism is showing again, Steve.

     “Ryan hates Christianity more than he loves science. That’s why he keeps touting Rowe’s argument about the burning fawn even though Rowe’s argument runs contrary to fire ecology. Ryan would rather discount science (e.g. fire ecology) so that he can cling to the evidential argument from evil. Atheism, not science, is his touchstone.”

     I don’t hate Christianity. You, however, love making unjustified inferences about motives. Rowe’s argument doesn’t run counter to fire ecology! It only deals with the apparent pointlessness of the fawn’s arbitrary suffering, and how this counts as some evidence against the existence of an infinitely perfect, powerful God.

     I’ve offered plenty of other arguments against God’s existence. I doubt his existence, I don’t deny it, btw. You just honed in on one or two arguments and ignored the rest, as is your custom.

     Stop the quotes,…
176. C Michael Patton says:

     March 10, 2013 at 6:32 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     If there is a God, the terms science and supernatural don’t exist as distinct forms of action. If we did not just pop into existence from nothing or eternally exist from nothing (both philosophical absurdities), then everything is supernatural and everything is science. For God there would be no distinction. There are just some things he has allowed is to know and other things that are left in the dark.

     Resurrection is not supernatural to God it is just like everything else, his science if you will. Therefore, what one calls a mystery another calls supernatural. What one calls a miracle the other calls an anomaly. What one calls God of the gaps the other calls science of the gaps.

     One day we may perfectly understand the physics of resurrection, healings, and the like. It does not make it any less God’s domain.
177. C Michael Patton says:

     March 10, 2013 at 6:34 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     And Ryan, please read the rules. You are spamming the comments. There is a reason why there are character limits. One post at a time. Two in a row have to go.
178. mbaker says:

     March 10, 2013 at 6:35 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan,

     Some of your responses have been interesting to say the least. However the big question remains: Scientists can certainly create and believe in certain realities, and even lay people, as you pointed out, can do the same things. We know for instance the stupidity of driving the wrong way on the freeway at 70 miles an hour, or deliberately shooting ourselves in the head. So those realities are a given for all humans, believers or not.

     However, here’s what I wonder. You seem to think that the existence of God cannot be proven evidentially, so therefore He does not exist. Are there not many things that still cannot be discovered by science, yet scientists go on trying to prove their existence, even though one could argue they also have a supernatural belief despite the lack of evidence? Isn’t this why they call Darwin’s discoveries the ‘Theory’ of Evolution? All the blanks haven’t been filled in there either, and there is so far limited evidence that human and apes are related. except in theory of genomes, and Lucy the ‘humanoid’, yet many in the scientific community consider it a foregone conclusion.

     It’s hard for us on the other side to tell the difference.
179. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 6:39 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Michael,

     That’s a big if. I could just as easily say: “If natural laws spontaneously change every million years, then all scientific inferences about what occurred in the distant past based on the assumption that natural laws don’t change are null and void.”

     But we’re justified in assuming the gravitational acceleration constant doesn’t change, nor does the decay rate of radioactive isotopes or any number of things.

     There’s not a problem with belief in God. There is a problem, however, with those who characterize unbelievers as heretic rebels willfully ignorant of the evidence right in front of them.

     For me, there just isn’t enough evidence to warrant belief. Not only that, but it doesn’t seem to be relevant to my life. I can still know what’s right and wrong and have a meaningful life regardless of whether I believe in God.

     God really might exist, who knows? However, his existence is anything but a given, and it certainly can’t matter that much, because if it did, he would have made the evidence for it more accessible to us. Right?
180. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 6:44 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     It seems like you self-servingly adopt the “we don’t know much and anything is possible” attitude only when it’s convenient.

     I identify with that position. There’s a lot we don’t know, and I think truly educated people understand and are comfortable with that. But it’s another thing entirely to only adopt that posture when it benefits your argument.

     When I highlight difficulties within the bible, lack of evidence for god’s existence in the natural world, you’re quick to say that for all we know the natural and supernatural are one and that God rules it all, but are never willing to say that YOU could be wrong about God’s existence. For you, God’s existence is a given and not open to questioning or doubt, whereas almost anything else in science or any other domain of inquiry is open to questioning.

     Can you not see why I view this as a bit self-serving?
181. rockingwithhawking says:

     March 10, 2013 at 7:00 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan (Mavis) said:

     “I actually published two papers in peer-reviewed journals when I was an undergraduate, not that it makes a difference for our discussion, Steve. I judge amateur status by extreme overconfidence typical of pseudointellectuals and a highly selective understanding of science/philosophy in ways that favor your position.”

     Well, that depends. Speaking as a med student familiar with scientific research:

     1. What field(s) were your papers published in? Since you didn’t explicitly say, was it a scientific field? Which particular field in science? This would be relevant since you’re touting your research background here.

     2. Which journal(s) did you publish in? Not all peer-reviewed journals are created equal, so to speak. There are of course many journals which have a high standard for publication. (Although even the best journals make mistakes as can be seen in well-publicized scientific misconduct affairs for instance. Take Science publishing Hwang Woo-suk.) However, there are other journals which will publish just about anything. It’d be unbecoming of me to name names, but working scientists will know what I’m talking about within their respective fields.

     3. Most undergraduates don’t publish on their own. Most require the expertise and experience of a professor or other researcher and publish in conjunction with them. Were you, say, the first or second author on a paper?

     4. If it was scientific research, what did you do exactly? Some undergraduates do nothing more than help clean lab equipment or pass out surveys or somesuch, whereas others are far more integral to the research process.

     5. There are other questions one could ask but these are some basic ones to help better determine whether you’re more toward (as you put it) the “amateur” side or I suppose the professional side with regard to scientific research.
182. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 7:00 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Mbaker,

     I never said that since God’s existence can’t be proven “evidentially”, that he therefore doesn’t exist. I said this casts doubt on his existence. There is a world of difference between the two.

     And why is the attitude of requiring evidence before granting belief so bad in your view? In every other area of life, you operate under this attitude. If someone tells you randomly your brakes will fail today, you’ll want some evidence before assenting to that belief. It’s pretty obvious.

     And scientists posit hypotheses that are testable. Even if they aren’t proven yet, the hypotheses reference material causes that can be confirmed or falsified by experience. This is why material hypotheses are different from guesses about supernatural entities. The latter can’t be confirmed or denied by experience.

     Second, and most, most, most importantly, the word ‘theory’ in science doesn’t mean what it does in everyday usage. Theory in science is a combination of facts, laws and hypotheses, and explains why something is happening.

     Hypotheses don’t ‘graduate’ to theory status once they’re proven. This is a common misconception. Theories will always be theories, and are the most important part of science. A theory is a well-substantiated concept that explains something, and could never be more than what it is. The kinetic theory of gases, while it could never be a ‘fact’ or ‘law’, is so well attested by the evidence that it’s not questioned. It is universally accepted. Evolution is the same way. It is a concept that explains the diversity of life, and is well-attested by evidence. No serious scientist questions it anymore. Only the religious do. The DNA, fossil, embryological, morphological, geological evidence is overwhelming.
183. rockingwithhawking says:

     March 10, 2013 at 7:11 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Just briefly since I only have a few more moments: It seems to me Ryan keeps arguing for an a priori commitment to methodological naturalism. But that’s the very point of contention. That’s what Steve Hays, among others, has been calling him out on. Sorry to say so but I don’t see Ryan appreciating this at this point.
184. mbaker says:

     March 10, 2013 at 7:23 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan,

     That’s where we Christians think you are being unfair. We think there is evidence that God exists even if it is not from the present. We also have archeological evidence and eyewitness accounts. You have given a great amount of arguments as to the fact that the universe didn’t come from nothing. So how did the universe and life come in being in the first place? This is not a question even the most learned scientists can answer, without a qualifier.

     I have a blogging friend who is a quantum physicist and a Christian, and he will be the first to say so.
185. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 7:52 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Who are all these random people coming to Steve’s defense? And why is the blog host focusing exclusively on my one or two violations of the blog rules while people on his “side” as he calls it, commit 20 in the first place?

     Have I not spent this entire time defending why methodological naturalism is necessary in science? How on earth did you come to the conclusion that I’ve missed the point or failed to defend it?

     My only goal was to expose a decided lack of willingness to be objective, impartial, and fluent in science and analytic philosophy. I think we’ve arrived.
186. mbaker says:

     March 10, 2013 at 8:17 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan,

     I was not one of the ones who personally criticized you but I am wondering how you cannot see that a “decided lack of willingness to be objective, impartial, and fluent in science and analytic philosophy” to quote you, is exclusive to Christians. There have been a great many good comments on here, which you have chosen to call ‘silly’ or other names. I hope you will continue to interact here but remember this is a Christian theology site, and we are not scientists. And this post is not about science anyway.

     I would also like to ask what your own credentials are as far as training and education. I believe someone already has, but I don’t recall your answer.

     Thanks.
187. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 8:43 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     MBaker,

     I know you weren’t. None of that applies to you. And the attitude I describe isn’t peculiar to Christians. All types do it. And I’ve met plenty of Christians who don’t.

     I understand that most of you aren’t scientists, and neither am I. So, the rational thing to do when confronted with a subject about which you know very little is to stay silent, or at least be tentative about what you think you know in that subject. On this forum, many portray a degree of scientific literacy that isn’t borne out through conversation and rebuttal.

     I have a philosophy degree. I went back to school recently for a M.S. degree (graduate science degree).

     It’s not that I’m an expert in science. It’s that I understand at a fundamental level what scientists are really doing to construct a scientific body of knowledge that’s highly reliable, predicts how matter behaves, can be replicated by others, and improves our quality of life by replacing fear and uncertainty with understanding/information.
188. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 9:25 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan says:

     “Steve. I judge amateur status by extreme overconfidence typical of pseudointellectuals and a highly selective understanding of science/philosophy in ways that favor your position.”

     So you won’t object if we measure you by your own yardstick.

     “Michael Ruse probably defined methodological naturalism different than I do in this context…”

     Would that be an example of “extreme overconfidence typical of pseudointellectuals and a highly selective understanding of science/philosophy in ways that favor your position” on your part?

     “In your ‘water turned to wine’ example…first, no reliable evidence exists to suggest this really happened.”

     Irrelevant. I already prefaced the example by framing it as a hypothetical case. Did you miss that?

     “Second, if one could do all that you asked for, send a scientists back in time, conduct the relevant tests, etc., and the water inexplicably turned to wine, and all other possible natural explanations were eliminated, then he would be perfectly justified in tentatively accepting a supernatural explanation.”

     So is this your backdoor admission that your effort to compartmentalize scientific explanations from supernatural explanations breaks down?

     “The scientist couldn’t, however, use this to formulate additional scientific theories or laws.”

     You have a habit of repeating yourself, but I already addressed that. Are you claiming that every scientific explanation must yield additional scientific theories or laws? If not, your statement is a diversionary tactic.

     “What would you call this new law in Chemistry?”

     Why does that have to be a “new law of chemistry” to count as a scientific explanation? If a coroner says the victim choked to death when food got accidentally lodged in his windpipe, does that fail as a scientific explanation of death unless it generates a new law of asphyxiation?
189. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 9:26 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “’Water to Wine – it’s Magic!’ How would it help us understand natural laws?”

     Why does scientific verification of an event have to help us understand natural laws? If, by process of elimination, scientific techniques eliminated natural or physical causes for the transmutation of water into wine, then a scientific explanation points to a supernatural cause. To ask whether that additionally helps us understand natural laws is a red herring.

     “Predict chemical reactions?”

     Once again, you’re repeating yourself, despite the fact that I already addressed that objection. Are you claiming that every scientific explanation or verification must be predictive?

     Is there some reason you can’t adapt your position to new challenges? Is that why you keep falling back on your prepared answers, even when they are not responsive to the actual state of the argument?

     “The magic could have really happened, but it doesn’t advance the goal of science to incorporate magic water to wine observations into current theories.”

     Shouldn’t the goal of science be to arrive at a true understanding of what happened? You trivialize science by making methodology the goal of science, rather that putting methodology at the service of a quest for true understanding.

     And if current theories can’t accommodate reality, then so much the worse for current theories. If miracles really happen, then current theories need to make allowance for that fact. If they don’t, then they ought to be revised.

     You have an anti-intellectual habit of starting with prescriptive, man-made rules rather than starting with a man-independent reality to be discovered.
190. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 9:27 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “I never said all sciences use the exact same methods, rather, that all have in common the isolation of variables, holding others constant, and using experience to gauge the effects of variables of interest. Most scientists and philosophers of science doubt the possibility of reducing all of scientific inquiry to the subject of physics. Physics, after all, underlies everything, since everything is composed of matter. I suggest you listen more closely to what was actually said next time. Pointless jabs that create more heat than light, aren’t they?”

     Since you can’t quote me attributing to you the claim that all scientific inquiry is reducible to physics, you’re the one who needs to turn up the hearing aid.

     “By repeatable, I mean that another researcher or scientists could conduct the same line of inquiry under similar conditions and arrive at the same observation or conclusion.”

     What if similar conditions are not repeatable? You keep defaulting to a laboratory model.

     “This can and should be expected to occur in any scientific or systematic domain of inquiry, including archaeology or history.”

     Historical conditions are repeatable?

     “What I meant by a select few is one or two people who observed something, but the observation can’t be replicated by creating the same conditions.”

     Recreating a large comet or meteorite striking the earth? How do you go about that, exactly?

     “Physicists all over the world can ‘recreate’ the conditions that gave rise to the Higgs Boson. Your example is very silly.”

     And do you refuse to believe in the Higgs Boson until that’s replicated?

     BTW, you have a habit of making sloppy statements and hasty generalizations. When challenged, you scale back your original claim or tack on qualifications you failed to mention the first time around, then act as if this is what you really meant all along. Sorry, but you don’t get advance credit for what you didn’t say at the time you said it.
191. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 9:28 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “Steve, this example sucks, man! Science doesn’t conduct investigation based solely on eyewitness observation. They could search for a meteorite impact site, for blast patterns that one would expect from a meteorite, for applying what is already known about meteorite impacts, acceleration, the forces involved, etc.”

     This is yet another instance of your carelessness. Did I say they based their conclusion solely on eyewitness testimony? No. And, in fact, I specifically mentioned the blast pattern. Did you miss that?

     You bring up the blast pattern as if you’re supplementing what I said. As if I wasn’t the one who initially mentioned that.

     You keep overestimating yourself and underestimating your opponents. That constantly trips you up.

     The question at issue is whether eyewitness testimony to the falling object would legitimately figure in a scientific explanation, even if that was only viewed by a “select few.” Do you now understand the argument?

     “Karl Popper introduced this concept. It’s a crucial feature of scientific explanations, but isn’t a sufficient one.”

     To say falsification is a crucial feature of scientific explanation is a highly contested claim. No don’t that’s ideal. No doubt scientists would like that to be the case. But is it realistic?

     “The frame of reference consists of simpler scientific ideas/theories that have been proven correct by experience. Why is this difficult to understand? Galileo’s experiments with gravitational acceleration didn’t require knowledge of some magical ‘given’ that is known apart from experience. Only folks who anchor on philosophy and ignore other disciplines are confused about how this works.”

     That’s still circular or regressive. For you’re asserting that scientific claims must be tested against a scientifically interpreted world. But since the comparative framework is, itself, a scientific construct, what’s the standard for that? Can science bootstrap its own criteria?
192. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 9:29 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Your superior attitude isn’t translating into superior argumentation. Maybe you need to spend less time cultivating a superior attitude and spend more time cultivating a superior argument. For, as it stands, the gap between your intellectual tone and your intellectual performance is conspicuous.

     “’Accessible.’ A forensic scientist won’t identify the cause of death as ‘Lightning Strike Via God.’”

     But what if the cause of death *was* a lightning strike via God? What if, on a clear day, the victim looked up at the sky, shook his fist at God, and challenged the Almighty to strike him dead–followed by a deadly thunderbolt a moment later? Or perhaps a sudden, localized thunderstorm out of the blue?

     “He/she would give a physical description based on evidence that could be replicated under similar conditions. This isn’t a hard concept to wrap your head around. Most of your examples are answered easily enough. As long as a researcher can replicate the conditions that gave rise to the observation, and observe the same thing, it can count as scientific.”

     So the forensic scientist should recruit another human to stand outside, then coax a bolt of lighting to strike him dead.

     “Most of these supernatural events you reference are not of this type.”

     Assuming they happen, if they are not of this type, how should they be dealt with?

     “I hope my previous example illustrated what I mean when I say that scientific conclusions have to be capable of being replicated by other researchers in order to verify the findings.”

     No, you’ve only spoken in vague generalities.

     “If…if the prayer was answered. Do we know if the prayer even took place? How many people witnessed the prayer?”

     Once again, you have difficulty following the argument. As I said at the outset, you don’t have to believe any of this really happened. That’s not the point.
193. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 9:30 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     You need to keep track of your own argument. That’s what I’m responding to.

     You’ve indicated that, as a matter of principle, scientific explanations can never acknowledge or incorporate supernatural factors. I’m giving hypothetical examples that pose limiting-conditions on your claim. Are there hypothetical situations in which a scientific explanation would overlap with a supernatural explanation?

     If so, then you can’t exclude supernaturally-informed scientific explanations in principle. If, however, there is no conceivable situation in which you’d allow science to admit a supernatural explanation, even though that was the best explanation, then you’ve buffered science from God at the cost of buffering science from reality. You are so concerned to insulate science from the supernatural that you insulate science from the truth.

     “Wow, were did all these assumptions come from? How do you know any of this really happened?”

     This is the third time you’ve repeated the same mistake. Your attitude is especially ironic considering the role of thought-experiments in science.

     The question at issue, Ryan, is whether you can erect a wall between scientific explanations and supernatural explanations. Is that a principled distinction, or just an ad hoc distinction to shield your atheism?

     The problem, Ryan, is that unless reality is, in fact, compartmentalized, your attempt to keep supernaturalism at bay is artificial. Methodological naturalism is only warranted if metaphysical naturalism is true. If nature is all there is, then you can properly exclude supernatural explanations. But methological naturalism can’t make that call.

     If, in fact, there are two domains–nature and supernature–then you can’t stipulate that these two domains never interact.
194. rockingwithhawking says:

     March 10, 2013 at 9:31 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan said:

     “Who are all these random people coming to Steve’s defense?”

     Come on, man. No need to get your feathers all ruffled. This is an open blog. Anyone is free to comment.

     By the way, if you’re referring to me, I’m not coming to Steve’s defense. I’m sure he does just fine on his own.

     “My only goal was to expose a decided lack of willingness to be objective, impartial, and fluent in science and analytic philosophy.”

     Seriously? Anyone can read or re-read your previous comments and see that’s hardly been your “only goal”!

     More importantly, you’re coming into this with your own fairly strong presuppositions, which is fine, but one could make the case you’re hardly “willing” to be “objective” and “impartial” based on your own comments in this thread.
195. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 9:31 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “If a study eliminated other possible variables, held the witchcraft factor constant, and noticed a direct effect exerted on the natural world by witchcraft, then you bet it could be incorporated into science.”

     So you’re conceding that scientific explanations can’t exclude supernatural factors ahead of time. But in that event, methodological naturalism is premature and prejudicial. Indeed, methodological naturalism is the enemy of scientific inquiry, for it presumes to know what explanations are possible or actual before we even study the event or sift the evidence.

     “And, most importantly, none such occurrence has been witnessed to date, so your thought experiments – so far detached from reality – are almost pointless.”

     Christian exorcists claim otherwise.

     “Even field studies involve isolating variables or drawing correlative relationships between variables. You know this…right?”

     You’ve bundled two claims into one. You know this…right?

     “No, because when establishing causation, he/she will undoubtedly try to isolate any other possible variable that’s affecting their behavior. Honestly, why is the concept of isolating variables, holding others constant, and testing for the effects of the variable of interest so difficult?”

     Does a zoologist have to establish causation to publish a field report of what he saw? You keep confusing description with explanation. Honestly, why is that distinction so difficult?

     “One need not interfere with nature to eliminate other possible causes for the observed behavior.”

     Once again, reporting on what he saw doesn’t require him to establish causes or eliminate causes.

     “I gave an example of how – at core – all scientific investigation shares important features that are absent in other areas, like divine revelation, theology, philosophy.”

     You gave an example of something I never denied, as if you were refuting something I said.
196. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 9:32 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “Mohammad claims to have been visited by the archangel Gabriel in a cave. Honestly, do you not know any of this?”

     This is another example of how you make hasty generalizations, backpedal when challenged, yet act as if your newly-chastened, newly-pared down claim, was what you originally said.

     You initially made a blanket claim about “Eyewitnesses wrote the Koran, the Vedas, Homer’s Iliad, the Satanic bible, the epic of Gilgamesh…”

     But a lot of the Koran is clearly not based on eyewitness observation, even ostensibly. For instance, Muhammad summarizes his garbled, thirdhand knowledge of OT history and NT history.

     Furthermore, your latest, modified statement won’t salvage your claims about the Vedas, Iliad, Epic of Gilgamesh, or “Satanic bible” (whatever that refers to).

     “Non-sequitur! Annoying, isn’t it?”

     Since you offer no supporting argument, no, it’s not annoying.

     “So, you really think God’s existence is such a given that anyone who denies it due to a perceived lack of evidence is crazy or willfully ignorant? Is this really what you think?”

     If you ask, I’d say you’ve been giving us a personal object lesson–albeit unwittingly.

     “For example, literal interpretations of Genesis are falsified by science.”

     Except for all the scientists who disagree with you.

     “Science doesn’t say supernatural realms don’t exist. Science says: We aren’t equipped to deal with supernatural claims…”

     That’s not what science says. That’s what Ryan says. That’s why atheists say. And that self-imposed blindfold is an impediment to real science.

     “…to test them, to replicate them and their findings, and to use that to predict the behavior of matter.”

     Did you memorize these phrases on flash cards? You keep reciting the same slogans, even though I’m pointed out how your characterization overshoots the mark.

     “I don’t hate Christianity. You, however, love making unjustified inferences about motives.”

     You’re a militant apostate. An evangelist for…
197. steve hays says:

     March 10, 2013 at 9:32 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “Rowe’s argument doesn’t run counter to fire ecology! It only deals with the apparent pointlessness of the fawn’s arbitrary suffering…”

     Given fire ecology, Bambi’s demise in the forest fire isn’t pointless or arbitrary.

     “…and how this counts as some evidence against the existence of an infinitely perfect, powerful God.”

     So you keep saying, in the teeth of the counterargument.
198. rockingwithhawking says:

     March 10, 2013 at 9:38 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Ryan said:

     “I have a philosophy degree. I went back to school recently for a M.S. degree (graduate science degree)”.

     Just like your above claim about “peer-reviewed articles,” this is a fairly vague statement. There are a lot of different sorts of “graduate science degree[s]“. For example, there are master of science degrees in accounting, finance, economics, various social sciences. A few universities offer master of science degrees in philosophy too. But obviously these wouldn’t necessarily involve the same sort of scientific background required in graduate fields of biology, chemistry, or physics.

     Likewise there are master of science degrees in computer science and different areas of engineering. Not to mention mathematics. But again research in these fields don’t necessarily involve the same scientific background as would be required in biology, chemistry, or physics. At least not without some crossover (e.g. bioengineering).
199. rockingwithhawking says:

     March 10, 2013 at 10:15 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     I’m sorry for the bluntness, but I think it’s necessary in this case: Ryan is a bully. He bullies Christians who are not as well versed in apologetics (given he claims he was once an aspiring Christian apologist), debate tactics, and the like as he is. It’d be fairer for him to debate Christians who have had some experience in debate. Take some of the Christians who comment over on Triablogue. I’d recommend Triablogue as an apologetics venue worth checking out.
200. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 10:15 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     I can’t do this with you forever, Steve. I have some actual science to study.

     “Would that be an example of “extreme overconfidence typical of pseudointellectuals and a highly selective understanding of science/philosophy in ways that favor your position” on your part?”

     No, this is a common distinction in philosophy of science, one that dominates the subject. I’m surprised you haven’t encountered it before. Christian apologists can hijack the word all they like. You know what I mean by the distinction, so playing coy to obfuscate and avoid adding to the discussion just won’t cut it.

     “Irrelevant. I already prefaced the example by framing it as a hypothetical case. Did you miss that?”

     If natural laws changed every second, then all scientific laws are invalid. Therefore, any statement that scientific laws are based on predictability and the repetition of numerous studies that derive the same result is therefore potentially false, just because of my hypothetical syllogism. You guys waste so much time divorcing your reason from what experience actually reveals to be the case.

     “So is this your backdoor admission that your effort to compartmentalize scientific explanations from supernatural explanations breaks down?”

     No, because the scientist might believe the cause is supernatural, but no other scientist could presumably replicate the results by creating similar conditions. Do you still not understand the difference between methodological and metaphysical naturalism? I can believe in the supernatural, but not incorporate it into scientific theories. Get off the computer and go take a philosophy of science course.

     “You have a habit of repeating yourself, but I already addressed that. Are you claiming that every scientific explanation must yield additional scientific theories or laws? If not, your statement is a diversionary tactic.”

     Not necessarily. But it needs to jibe with current known theories, laws and facts.
201. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 10:24 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “Why does scientific verification of an event have to help us understand natural laws? If, by process of elimination, scientific techniques eliminated natural or physical causes for the transmutation of water into wine, then a scientific explanation points to a supernatural cause.”

     The conclusion needs to agree with known scientific findings. Transmutation does not. Your dealing in the hypothetical realm of the imaginary to refute the scientific enterprise. I can create any number of hypotheticals that would – if true – refute the reliability of scientific inquiry. But the hypotheticals aren’t real. This is why rationalism is dead among those who actually contribute to our body of knowledge and advance our scientific knowledge. Some of the religious still cling to it and refuse to advance with the rest of us.

     “Shouldn’t the goal of science be to arrive at a true understanding of what happened? You trivialize science by making methodology the goal of science, rather that putting methodology at the service of a quest for true understanding.”

     Yes. Experience has taught us that true understanding is reliably obtained by the scientific method. History clearly shows that science is by far the most superior way of predicting our world and solving our problems. So far, supernatural claims haven’t withstood this scrutiny. Sorry.

     “Since you can’t quote me attributing to you the claim that all scientific inquiry is reducible to physics, you’re the one who needs to turn up the hearing aid.”

     I know you didn’t. But my goal in this discussion isn’t just to win an argument. It’s also to track truth. Some of us have grown up. And my point was to say that, while science takes slightly different forms depending on the line of inquiry, it all has in common isolating variables and holding others constant so the effects of variables can be measured. This was in response to your criticism that my characterization of science was narrow.
202. C Michael Patton says:

     March 10, 2013 at 10:59 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     Folks, this is the last warning.

     Steve, please don’t post so many comments.

     Ryan, you have already been warned. I suppose that what I say does not matter?
203. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 11:01 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     “Christian exorcists claim otherwise.”

     So do voodoo practitioners, Harold Camping on the end of the world, Jehovah’s Witnesses on whether they are the only ones qualified to interpret the bible, scientologists on using auditing to improve one’s quality of life, and the list goes on ad nauseaum. You’re in good company.

     “You’ve bundled two claims into one. You know this…right?”

     No, I haven’t. You said not all scientific activity consists of laboratory experiments. I agreed, and mentioned that field experiments involve the same activity I described earlier as being the core of the scientific method – isolating variables, holding others constant, testing the effects…this is done in field research, in addition to describing the behavior of whatever you’re observing. Is that confusing?

     Does a zoologist have to establish causation to publish a field report of what he saw? You keep confusing description with explanation. Honestly, why is that distinction so difficult?

     Are you rebuking a claim I never made. Of course scientists offer descriptions of physical events. However, if the description is highly unexpected, and deviates from what is known about what’s being observed, it will be scrutinized and perhaps discarded. So, if you’re trying to sneak in some claim that biblical eyewitness testimony taking place in a time of superstition is similar to field observation, think again.

     “Once again, reporting on what he saw doesn’t require him to establish causes or eliminate causes.”

     Of course not. Who is denying this?

     You gave an example of something I never denied, as if you were refuting something I said.

     You denied that science involves to a large extent isolating variables and testing for their effects. You thought this could only be done in a laboratory. I demonstrated how it could be done in the field or indirectly through inference. You missed it, apparently.
204. C Michael Patton says:

     March 10, 2013 at 11:01 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     I am only involved here due to it being an older post and it exploding with comments again just lately. Once this happens, it grabs my eye, even though I know that the rules are broken on a daily basis that I don’t know about.

     This is highly charged. Emotions are high. When this happens, blogs like this do very little to advance any cause. They usually just end up wasting time. Finish up here. I don’t want to have to close this down…I just don’t have time to moderate.
205. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 11:02 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     It does, Michael. It’s your blog. I’m done posting.
206. Ryan says:

     March 10, 2013 at 11:23 pm

     Like or Dislike: 0

     One last thing to Rockingwithhawking,

     To be completely honest, this isn’t how I wanted the conversation to go.

     I haven’t formally studied philosophy for years, so to engage in it and stay at least a little sharp, I’ll come on these forums and discuss.

     Most of the time, it’s civil and cordial. It’s only when I run across guys like Steve that I get irritated. He’s honestly one of the worst I’ve come across in terms of being focused on scoring cheap rhetorical points, semantic quibbling, and dealing solely in the rational realm apart from science.

     I absolutely hate those debate tactics you mentioned. I don’t want to present a case chock full of tricks and sophistry. I thought I was actually presenting the facts here, especially when it comes to why science can only deal in natural explanations.

     To answer your question, I’m in school to be a P.A., so I recently took a lot of those hard science courses like chemistry, physics, biology, zoology, etc. I’m far from an expert, and most of what I learned comes from the philosophy of science I studied awhile ago. But the more hard sciences I study, the more distanced I feel from analytic philosophy. I appreciate it’s precision, clarity and ability to construct concise arguments and analyze claims, but once it’s removed too far from science or experience, it just gets stupid, in my opinion.

     And scientific consensus views are very often misrepresented. Just because a few scientists dissent doesn’t mean there isn’t a majority consensus. This is especially true with evolution. The theory is held with as much confidence as gravitational theories. Some people just don’t know it yet.
207. C Michael Patton says:

     March 11, 2013 at 1:18 am

     Like or Dislike: 1

     Steve, I warned Ryan a few post back. I did not even read to see if he was a Christian or not. I just noticed that he was breaking the rules and posting one post after another. When he did it again, I warned him again and deleted the posts.

     If I were to let you break the rules and not him, how does that help anything? I would be accused by all, rightly so, of favoritism.

     I am sorry to have offended you Steve. I know you have a big blog so you can probably understand where I am coming from?

Post a Comment