Christianity, Darwinism and The Fall

Noah Millman makes a good point:

I continue to believe that both sides of the Darwin vs. Christianity battle are missing the most telling point. We should all agree that religious dogma has no bearing on the truth or falsity of a scientific theory. Heliocentrism is true; geocentrism is false. There is an enormous weight of evidence behind the theory of evolution by natural selection. There is going to be more and more evidence behind new theories about the workings of the human mind, and the interactions of the human genome and human personality. All religion can do is react to these discoveries and, as part of that reaction, caution us about drawing unwarranted conclusions (political, moral, what-have-you) from the evidence. But I don’t think that’s the end of the story, because I think science does have implications for the persuasiveness of specific religious doctrines, simply as a psychological matter. And I think evolution through natural selection is extremely uncongenial to the central Christian story about the nature of sin and evil in the world. Why? Because the Christian story has the entry of strife into the world come about as the result of human sin, whereas the core idea behind evolution by natural selection is that our existence – and the consciousness and ability to sin that comes with it – is a product of strife. Put bluntly: natural selection is not the mechanism that the Christian deity would use to create man in His image. Or, if it is, I’d like to see the explanation. I think that natural selection poses similar but less-acute problems for Judaism and Islam; it poses the fewest problems, I suspect, for Hinduism. Again: I’m not speaking of science refuting religion. I’m speaking of scientific results making certain core religious claims less persuasive.

Of course, one reason I think it's a good point is that I just made it myself, in a review of Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity for the the just-released, not-yet-online spring issue of Claremont Review of Books. The idea that evolution-by-natural-selection somehow disproves religion in general, or theism more specifically, is basically preposterous. The idea that the mechanism of natural selection, in which the development of man requires millions of years of strife and suffering and death in the animal kingdom, poses a specific challenge to Christian beliefs about the nature of God is more plausible, and warrants a more serious response than the "hey, evolution is too compatible with a belief in designer God" rejoinder that some Christian apologists, D'Souza included, often employ.

I didn't attempt to address that challenge in the review, in part because I wouldn't say that I have a settled opinion on the matter. It seems to me, though, that the possible rejoinders to the Millman argument fall into three broad categories. One view would hold that strife and pain and death are only evils when they are experienced by creatures who are made in the image of God; since animals are not so created, they have more or less the same moral status as machines, and the Almighty is indifferent to their suffering. In this view, evolution by natural selection poses no difficulty at all for Christian theodicy: Pain and death are natural to our animal ancestors but an evil when experienced by self-conscious beings with free will, and for that reason homo sapiens were granted immortality initially, only to subsequently lose it through disobedience to God. (This seems to be the view that Stephen Barr takes in this post, though I may be misinterpreting him.)

The second perspective the one that C.S. Lewis inclined toward; as you might expect from the man who created Narnia, he was particularly concerned by the problem that animal suffering poses for theodicy, and he argued that Satan's influence on the world must necessarily have predated the Fall of Man. Sin entered human history with the disobedience of our first parents, in other words, but it entered the history of the universe at the beginning of time, with Lucifer's disobedience. The emergence of Man through evolution-by-natural-selection, in this view, is a case of God making use of a fallen creation for His own good ends.

The final perspective - which I associate, perhaps incorrectly, with Teilhard de Chardin - suggests that the Fall is both a temporal and an extra- or supra-temporal event, one whose impact on creation runs both forward and backward in time, retroactively poisoning the pre-historic development of man as well as his history. This sounds like the strangest and most implausible of the possible explanations, obviously. But given the mysterious relationship between space and time that modern physics has uncovered, and the still more mysterious relationship between space, time and eternity that obtains if Christianity's account of things is true, it may not be quite so implausible as it sounds.

Comments

Thanks, Ross. Some comments and questions:

1. "Animal suffering doesn't count" strikes me as not a good way to go.

2. C.S. Lewis' notion sounds interesting, but I'm trying to make sense of what it really implies. If natural evil is Satan's doing from the beginning, and natural selection depends on natural evil (not just run-of-the-mill killing and eating but mass extinctions and the like), then God created not only Man but all life through a Satanic mechanism. There's something powerfully appealing about the idea. I'm trying to figure out if it sounds like Christianity. (Not being a Christian, of course, I'm not the one to say.)

3. I wouldn't hang this on backward-causation. Read more straightforwardly, I think, it amounts to saying that humanity, in some spiritual sense, pre-dates creation - that we were there from the beginning, with God and His angels. I think that's a gnostic perspective, not a Christian one, but again, I could be wrong.

Of course, beyong all this, there's the point that there's no reason to believe that evolution is over. The Judeo-Christian perspective on creation is quite static; man, in particular, is a finished product, not a work in progress. But in important senses, this turns out not to be true. What are the implications?

Posted by Noah Millman | April 24, 2008 9:50 AM

Well, to crib further from CS Lewis (here's the part of "Mere Christianity" that nobody ever talks about), one possible Christian interpretation of evolution is that its next step is voluntary, and that step is totally spiritual: Christianity itself. Religion in general and Christianity in particular do run contrary to the idea that man "is a finished product" in the moral sense, at least, so perhaps the opportunity for the Christian to be perfected by God is a sort of optional devonian leap.

Mind you, I have no idea what that leap would/will look like and the concept does start to look a little dispensationalist (not to mention sensationalist) when you stare at it long enough.

Posted by Sam Thielman | April 24, 2008 10:09 AM

I'd say there's another response, which you might call the Leibniz view or the "best of all possible worlds" view. Once God decided to create the world, there were constraints on what was possible to create. Evolution by natural selection is a fundamental characteristic of almost any conceivable form of life. So some sort of Darwinian mechanism is necessary in the world.

Posted by Doug T | April 24, 2008 10:18 AM

Jews and Christians share the same scriptures concerning the doctrine of creation. So they are in the same boat.

There are a thousand sophisticated theology readings of natural selection. I see no evidence Millman has read any of them.

You can go one route with Aquinas--God's use of secondary causation. You can go another route with orhthodox Judaism--that God steps back to grant creation a certain freedom. Etc, etc.

At the end of the day, however, the idea that natural selection decisively account for the origins of life is not a scientific thesis. It is a metaphysical one. An article of faith.

Posted by Tom F. | April 24, 2008 10:27 AM

Of course you can't hold to a literal view of the events of Genesis and also affirm evolution by natural selection. However I think the author of Genesis even way back when intended the tale to be allegorical, not literal. The names "Adam" and "Eve" actually mean something in Hebrew and the Tree in the Garden was not just any old tree but the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So what we have in the tale of the Fall is an allegory of humankind coming into moral consciousness (the Tree of Knowledge...) and perhaps also moral choice, ending humankind's moral innocence. Later interpretations (that there was no death,suffering etc in the world previously) are not supported by the text of Genesis itself: obviously some sort of death existed if Adam and Eve were eating other fruits and vegetables in the garden; the plant matter they ate was not immortal in their digestion.
As for the larger question of theodicy here I tend to go with the view that the created world was necessarily imperfect, since it was distinct from God Himself. There is a medieval proof that God cannot create a replica of Himself, and if the world had been perfect in every way it would have been another God. And I also have some small sympathy for Teilhard's view (though not the precise details of his theory) in that it does not matter so much where the world has been as it does where it is going, and where we chose to go ourselves. Creation and creation's God are justified not in the past but in the future, and in the meantime we have the promise of the Incarnation to show that God is indeed mindful of the suffering he has perforce allowed here. (OK, it's Orthodox Holy Week, so I am waxing theological these days)

Posted by JonF | April 24, 2008 10:38 AM

the idea that natural selection decisively account for the origins of life

No one thinks that it does. Rather, it explains how species develop over generations.

Good discussion here.

In the end, I think that science cannot pose a threat to faith, because faith is about spirituality and how we react to the world, not the nuts and bolts of how the world works. It's not too difficult to poke holes in, say, Rastafarianism or Mormonism. Yet they persist. I don't mean to argue that this is all a waste of time, but just that there need not be a conflict, as long as the two sides don't try to interfere with each other.

Posted by anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:40 AM

I've read quite a bit of Teilhard de Chardin's work, though it's been a few years. I don't think he said #3, but it's somewhat similar to other things he did say. His view (very broadly generalizing here) was that the matter of the world is gradually becoming self-aware. Through the long hard slog of conflict and evolution we will arrive at some "omega" point in the indefinite future. There, being fully aware of ourselves and our place in the world God gave us, we'll have achieved something like the New Jerusalem.

I'm not aware that he thought of matter as particularly evil. After all, his early career was as a geologist and paleontologist, and he wrote of finding God at the "heart of matter." But he was very much aware that there is struggle throughout the evolutionary process. There are always forces holding us back from further awareness. I believe there's a section of "Phenomenon of Man" where he says something to the effect that in his darkest moments he sometimes wonders if the forces holding us back evolve to become more powerful with each breakthrough in consciousness. That's not exactly the same thing as saying that an extra-temporal Fall event caused it, but I think it's probably where you got the idea. That fear is also not surprising, given his personal experience as a WWI field medic, and given the fact that the book was completed at roughly the same time the Nazis were coming to power in Germany.

Posted by Tel | April 24, 2008 10:40 AM

The notion that 'evolution is the product of strife' is not quite true. In fact, there's strong evidence that evolution is generally the product of exogenous factors (e.g., meteors, climate change, etc.) You don't have to buy the Social Darwinist doctrine to be a Darwinist.

Posted by MattF | April 24, 2008 11:21 AM

Noah's point, as it is, sounds fine.

But all your three points sound like a lot of hand-waving to me, Ross. For whatever its worth -- and I'm no expert on Christian theology -- all these mutterings about "the mysterious relationship between space and time that modern physics has uncovered, and the still more mysterious relationship between space, time and eternity that obtains if Christianity's account of things is true" makes you sound like one of those bad post-modernists that Bricmont and Sokal satirized in "Fashionable Nonsense".

Again, for what its worth, I think there's a valid point to a "hermeneutic" view of epistemology (Richard Rorty's for instance) but there's nothing really "mysterious" about the relationship between space and time that modern physics has discovered. The language of modern physics is that of mathematics and when that increasingly complicated mathematics is translated into language, it will make almost any relationship sound "mysterious". Physicists who work on these problems tend to think of them less in terms of the metaphors they would employ and more in terms of the equations they solve. That's what made all the writings of Lacan and Jean Baudrillard so laughable -- they were taking the linguistic metaphors that physicists were employing to explain their theories to the general public almost at face value.

Posted by scritic | April 24, 2008 11:24 AM

Along the lines of JonF's comment, I think part of the problem is that these posts are expecting a scientific or naturalistic kind of explanation of human orgins from the Genesis that the Genesis itself refuses to give.

The Genesis tells a story of the moral, as opposed to the merely natural, evolution of man. It does so because, it suggests, man's desire to know, and to know aboubt his origins, is somehow inherently human and inherently problematic.

Hence man's fall and the origin of human life flow from his inability to resist eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Later, Ham uncovers his father's nakedness (the point of his physical origin), which his brothers cover up. Ham's descendants don't turn out as well as his borthers'.

In word, the stories in the Genesis are about how stories of origins are problematic (only look at them in vieled form) and an effort to educate, and restrain, those very tendencies. It would, in particular, tell man to look to the law and his possible perfection, rather than to look back solely to the natural circumstances of his condition.

Posted by rob | April 24, 2008 11:40 AM

The idea that evolution-by-natural-selection somehow disproves religion in general, or theism more specifically, is basically preposterous.

Oh no, not this again. Who, specifically, is suggesting this? That Natural Selection disproves all religion? There is every bit as much scientific evidence for Teh Flying Spaghetti* Monster as for any other sky fairy. Look it up, man.

Also, after blaming U.S. Liberals for 9-11, it's hard for this Reality Based, science believer to take anything he says even remotely seriously. But maybe I'm just anti-Christianist.

*Some contend that the Supreme Being is really made of linguini

Posted by ed | April 24, 2008 11:44 AM

Ross writes: "The second perspective the one that C.S. Lewis inclined toward; as you might expect from the man who created Narnia, he was particularly concerned by the problem that animal suffering poses for theodicy, and he argued that Satan's influence on the world must necessarily have predated the Fall of Man."

Yeah, right. Wolves would have been vegetarians if the debbil hadn't corrupted them.

The Rube Goldberg-like mechanisms of theology don't make underlying silliness of the task go away.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 11:46 AM

Linguini? That's a new one on me, Ed. Most FSM'ers I've heard of think it's spaghetti, though I've heard of a few heretics who think it's angel hair. ;)

The Christian God, the Muslim God, the Hindu gods, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and a lack of all gods have exactly the same physical evidence - none. The laws of science only apply to this universe. You can't prove the existence or non-existence of something that exists (or not) outside of empirical reality, using empirical means. Even atheism is just a guess that makes exactly as much sense as a Flying Spaghetti Monster. What the laws of science can do, is prove or disprove events posited within this universe.

Posted by Tel | April 24, 2008 12:25 PM

"The idea that evolution-by-natural-selection somehow disproves religion in general, or theism more specifically, is basically preposterous."

This is a bit confused. Evolution was never intended to "disprove" religion. This is because religion, or God more specifically, was never a part of or fit into the equation. For generations, scientists have observed and tested the evidence. Not once has there been a single scrap of evidence that of a supernatural intervention. Thus, god was not part of the equation.

We know that the Genesis story is false. We know that the Earth is not the center of anything. We know that mankind did not appear out of nowhere, fully formed; instead we evolved from a common ancestor, now extinct. We know that modern humans have existed for only the tiniest fraction of our planet's existence. We know that most of all the life that has ever existed on this world is lost to the ages.

Evolution is the best evidence-based explanation we have of, in the simplest terms, biological diversification and how inherited traits change over time. More than 150 years of staggering evidence supports the theory. Are there fierce debates about parts of evolution? Yes. Are there things we don't know? Yes. But the theory in general is sound.

Religions keep banging on the door of a party they simply weren't invited to. Faiths have a choice: they can outright ignore or attempt to sabatoge the evidence, or find ways to sculpt their faith to better reflect our greater understanding of our world. I think the latter option would better ensure the survival of any faith.

Posted by Matt | April 24, 2008 12:25 PM

Faiths have a choice: they can outright ignore or attempt to sabatoge the evidence, or find ways to sculpt their faith to better reflect our greater understanding of our world. I think the latter option would better ensure the survival of any faith.

I think not. The strongest faiths around, from my POV, have always been the ones who deny evidence. I fail to see how an understanding of how natural selection works does not weaken one's faith in a benevolent God. Isn't there a corresponding rise in atheism alongside scientific advancement?

Posted by Bill | April 24, 2008 12:42 PM

Matt writes: "We know that the Genesis story is false."

Some of the most amazing moments in my arguments with fundamentalists have come after I pointed out that Genesis states that plants were created before the sun was. Generally they don't believe me at first, but after I direct them to the relevant passage they proceed to do quasi-intellectual handstands and backflips to support their "infallible" comedic text.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 12:50 PM

In addition to the reality-based science, a trend seems to have emerged: Religion keeps getting things wrong and having to defer to science, which got it right (e.g., heliocentrism, evolution, waterboarding is bad, raping kids and covering it up is also probably kind of bad, blowing crap up in the name of Allah is bad, and many, many more). This doesn't disprove religion, but it does establish a trend. And the trend shows no signs of deviating in the foreseeable future.

This would never ever happen outside of religion. Just imagine if a bunch of talking heads, reputed experts, went all over TV to advocate invading another country which bore no provable threat and were quickly proven to have been way wrong. Those guys would never ever work again.

Posted by ed | April 24, 2008 12:54 PM

What I think C.S. Lewis was getting at in Mere Christianity was that natural selection has helped us "advance" as humans but we should not make the mistaken assumption that to be evolved in such a worldly (in the bad sense)way is to be improved. I like how Lewis points out that there is a difference between physical evolution and spiritual evolution. As humans we have evolved quite a bit over the last 2000 years, but Jesus Christ's death on the cross reminds us of how much work there is to be done for the sake of spiritual evolution. In fact, we know that we have not collectively evolved spiritually since the death of Christ because we constantly see in our lifetimes the repetition of the same horrendous human tragedies over and over again. Even on an individual level, humans have not evolved out of cheating, lying, or betrayal.
Likewise, Lewis contends that the next step of evolution is a spiritual and individual one. That is what Christians call repentance. All the political & philosophical ideologies of the day are not going save mankind from his ultimate dilemma, himself. But repenting for our sins will.

There is no inherent virtue in evolution because evolution amounts to survival and survival is simply the avoidance of extinction for either oneself or one's species. In my interpretation of the scriptures, God consoles us in our suffering, but will NEVER save us from death. God does not fear death like we do. For that matter- and I think this was Lewis's key question about the significance of Darwanism - so what if Darwanism is true? If your only purpose in life is to improve your soul, which is certainly what Jesus taught us, then all the advantages awarded to us by evolution mean very little. This is not to say that Lewis thought that no good has come out of our advances, but our advances are not the things that will ultimately redeem us.

As a final point, I feel that, and this opinion informed by my reading of Mere Christianity, Christianity should not worry about Darwanism putting it out of business because history has shown us, and my faith says that this will always be true, that no man made theory even comes close to answering the crucial questions that Christianity answers. Likewise I'm sure that those who follow other religions feel the same way about their individual faiths.

Posted by Mike | April 24, 2008 12:54 PM

Wow, shockingly good post and great comments to boot.

Posted by Jeff | April 24, 2008 12:59 PM

I don't see this sort of discussion as particularly useful because this sort of question is several steps removed from more fundamental issues that need to be resolved first.

First among these is the sheer idea of an omnipotent, omniscient being. Could such a being exist in the first place? Well, five year olds seem to have a relevant insight when they ask questions like "Can God tell himself a secret he didn't already know?". A being who is omnipotent is a contradiction in terms as the question reveals. If such a being were possible, then there would be no difference between statements that are true and statements that are false as all possible statements would have exactly the same truth value. A premise that entails a contradiction being valid presupposes that all statements have the same truth value. There's a proof of this last statement in Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Since we live in a world where statements can have differing truth values, we do not live in a world where premises that entail contradictions can be valid premises.

It may be possible to form a coherent concept of a god but that god will not be omnipotent. So, one can dismiss the Christian God pretty much out of hand.

Posted by swells | April 24, 2008 1:04 PM

Mike writes: "In fact, we know that we have not collectively evolved spiritually since the death of Christ because we constantly see in our lifetimes the repetition of the same horrendous human tragedies over and over again."

Yes - it's hard to believe that some troglodytes still support the death penalty, torture, and aggressive warfare, just like the authorities did 2000 years ago.

But of course many of us have moved past such things.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 1:04 PM

One view would hold that strife and pain and death are only evils when they are experienced by creatures who are made in the image of God; since animals are not so created, they have more or less the same moral status as machines, and the Almighty is indifferent to their suffering. In this view, evolution by natural selection poses no difficulty at all for Christian theodicy: Pain and death are natural to our animal ancestors but an evil when experienced by self-conscious beings with free will...

That's some pretty shallow thinking in my mind, for a number of reasons. Putting aside for a moment the classical philosophical problem of the Almighty not being indifferent to the suffering of individuals who are self-aware, the relation of this response to the facts of evolutionary history raise a number of questions that there exist no good answers for. Specifically, at what stage of human evolution did God become not indifferent to the suffering of hominids? Australopithicus afarensis? Homo habilis? Erectus? What about Neanderthals? Was that creature's suffering an evil or did God not care because he was only created kinda in his image? Maybe He cared a little bit but not that much?

The claim that God is indifferent to the suffering of animals is problematic, I think, as well. Despite the biogical necessity (at least prior to the development of agriculture) of killing and eating animals, most of us find the actual task of doing so pretty darn unappealing (the eating part is quite pleasant, sure, but actually killing another animal is for the most part pretty unpleasant; that's why no one wants to work in a slaughterhouse). We are similarly repulsed by wanton cruelty to animals, and indeed make laws against it.

This is problematic, I think, for the theist who argues that animals have no moral status in God's eyes, because they clearly have moral status in ours. Are humans more moral, then, than God? What to make of our indisputable predisposition, then, against violence toward animals?

Posted by Jeff | April 24, 2008 1:18 PM

Jeff, you've got it about right. The problem of evil (suffering if you want to call it that) is also dispositive in the case of the kind, loving, omnipotent Christian God. If the Christian God is omnipotent (one of the key attributes) then by definition that God would have an infinite number of means at his disposal to accomplish any and every end in ways that do not involve evil. This would be true by definition if that God were omnipotent. That would make the existence of evil something the Christian God freely chose. That free choice would not be compatible with that same God being kind and loving.

Christians need to face up to a logical necessity. If their God is omnipotent, then he's an evil bastard because he could have accomplished any conceivable goal he had in mind without resorting to evil.

Posted by swells | April 24, 2008 1:27 PM

I think the "animal suffering doesn't count" is too causal a dismissal of the first perspective. It's not that animal suffering doesn't count; it's that because of man's ability to act by choice rather than instinct, animal suffering is fundamentally different from human suffering, both for the person inflicting the suffering and the one undergoing it. Just to take one example from Rousseau, a dog hit by rock is not aggrieved by an awareness of the contempt that motivated the rock thrower, and this awareness is often the most painful part of the act.

The same goes for pain, strife, and death. Conscious beings with a moral sense experience them in fundamentally different ways -- as evils to be avoided or goods to be chosen rather than mere facts of life -- than animals. Indeed, man's knowledge of them, and the freedom of choice that follows, makes man sufficiently god-like to be different from the animals and uniquely problematic.

At the end of the day, you can make Genesis seem silly when you compare it to science and demand of it a scientific account of human development. But science and natural selection also look pretty silly when you demand of it an account of man's moral and political development. If you want proof of that, just read some socio-biology and in particular its efforts to explain altruism and man's appreciation of beauty.

Posted by johnnyD | April 24, 2008 1:36 PM

swells writes: "Christians need to face up to a logical necessity. If their God is omnipotent, then he's an evil bastard because he could have accomplished any conceivable goal he had in mind without resorting to evil."

What sort of monster would create a sentient race while arranging the universe in such a way that most of them would end up being tortured forever? The Christian god - no matter how much the theologians try to pretty it up.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 1:41 PM

But science and natural selection also look pretty silly when you demand of it an account of man's moral and political development. If you want proof of that, just read some socio-biology and in particular its efforts to explain altruism and man's appreciation of beauty.

This is an excellent, well thought out point. Whenever Science fails to explain something to me in a simple, satisfactory way which I can understand, I automatically think, WWFSMD, and dismiss Science altogether.

Posted by ed | April 24, 2008 1:45 PM

johnnyD writes: "At the end of the day, you can make Genesis seem silly when you compare it to science and demand of it a scientific account of human development. But science and natural selection also look pretty silly when you demand of it an account of man's moral and political development. If you want proof of that, just read some socio-biology and in particular its efforts to explain altruism and man's appreciation of beauty."

Genesis seems quite silly to me in the "man's moral development" department also. But talking snake enthusiasts may disagree.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 1:46 PM

Swells, I don't think it's necessarily the case that an omnipotent, omniscient being is self-contradictory; so long as the omnipotence and omniscience is with regards to one universe only.

Suppose I write a book. With regards to the book's "universe," I am both omnipotent and omniscient. I know everything about that world - I can know everything from the weight of the planet they're on, to the innermost workings of their thoughts. I'm all-powerful, too. If I say a character's skin turns green for no reason, it turns green. I can even create contradictions - halfway through the story, I could decide that an earlier event didn't happen. I could even create a very large rock in that universe, insert a character representing "me" in the story, and have that character not be able to lift it; or lift it, if I want. (I can't personally lift the rock, anyway, since to me in this universe it's an idea of a rock instead of a real rock).

Note that this says nothing about my omnipotence or omniscience in the world I actually inhabit, just in the world I created. And it certainly says nothing about whether or not I'm good, evil, or any other moral qualifier.

Posted by Tel | April 24, 2008 1:46 PM

johnnyd and ed, the point is far from excellent and well thought out. It presupposes much about evolution that simply is not true. There is nothing in evolution that selects for excellence. All evolution involves is whether biological entities reproduce or do not reproduce. Man's moral and political development is in no way prohibited by evolution unless that moral and political development puts humans at a reproductive disadvantage.

The sheer ill-fittingness of human morality is one of the best signs that it evolved. After all, an omnipotent God would have been able to make us perfectly moral beings with absolutely no ill-effects to us whatsoever. To think otherwise would be to deny that very God's omnipotence; i.e., to be thinking that there was something that God could not do.

As far as political development goes, there is nothing magic about hierarchical systems. That is one of a probably infinite number of ways politics could have evolved. The fact that we, as primates, share an odd proclivity for orgainizing ourselves in hierarchical systems is best viewed as a contingent fact of our evolution as primates.

Posted by swells | April 24, 2008 2:02 PM

First of all, whether or not you agree with Ross' arguments, this is a great post.

Second, I agree with MoeLarry's 11:46 a.m. post. What I would think one would want to do if one were inclined to spirituality is to construct a religious narrative from the ground up that is consistent with natural selection. I.e., if there is a God, given what we now know about natural selection, what does that tell us about God. In truth, that's what the authors of the aincient religions did. They constructed a narrative based on the world as they knew it, and ascribed it to God. Of course, it turned out that a lot of what they thought they knew about the world was wrong.

The problem is that religious believers have no interest in starting over. They desperately want to believe that the promises of an afterlife written down 2,000 years ago are true. So they do backflips and evasive maneuvers, trying to jury-rig their faith to be consistent with what we now know. And it isn't pretty.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 24, 2008 2:07 PM

If such a being were possible, then there would be no difference between statements that are true and statements that are false as all possible statements would have exactly the same truth value. A premise that entails a contradiction being valid presupposes that all statements have the same truth value. There's a proof of this last statement in Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery.

So. I don't know what I'd choose as the best take on the general question here (which seems to me to be less an issue of itself than a special case of the problem of evil, and posters seem to be drifting that way). Backwards causality and the corruption of creation by the angelic fall seem reasonable enough, as (in a way) "animal suffering doesn't matter" (though when I'm petting my dog that one seems like a non-starter). For one thing the Genesis account collapses and shifts causal relationships around enough for teleological and metaphorical reasons that the conflation of the angelic Fall and the human fall's effects seems easy enough.

BUT. I don't think swells knows what he/she is talking about. "as all possible statements would have exactly the same truth value" -- really? Where is this argument put forth? I've seen somewhat reasonable arguments against omniscience and omnipotence that don't (as some of these do) evaluate down to bad word games, but I've never seen that one! And Popper hardly invented the idea that a contradiction implies everything, which seems to be implied here, suggesting to me that swells doesn't know logic, but has read a Popper book and suddenly become an expert. I fear that swells may have strong opinions about Goedel's proof or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, too.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | April 24, 2008 2:08 PM

Tel, well if you limit omniscience, omnipotence to one universe then you obviously aren't omnipotent in the sense that Christians think their God is omnipotent. They do not qualify their assertions for the omnipotence of God in the way you do. They make unqualified, assertions of omnipotence unbounded by context.

Your example still however doesn't hold. Yes, you may decide mid-stream that an event didn't occur but the contradiction will still exist. An observant reader will be able to look at the book and catch you out in your contradictions and infer from that contradiction that you are not God.

Posted by swells | April 24, 2008 2:10 PM

Swells -- I'm not even certain you understand the theory you're advocating. Evolution doesn't select or do anything. Natural selection is merely a tag for a logical tautology whereby certain chance mutations occur and enable the "fittest" to survive, the "fittest" being defined as those that survive. See, we can play these omnipotent-type logical games all day and it doesn't advance the ball one inch.

But human life, however much it is subject to chance, does not seem to be merely governed by chance. No one seriously believes that, and most if not all of our ethical, cultural, and social systems are predicated on our lives and acts having more moral valence than they would ever have if there were just the products of chance. That part of the human experience, as well as how we physically became who we are, needs explaining. And as you admit, the theory of natural selection is silent on that point.

Posted by johnnyD | April 24, 2008 2:18 PM

Marquis, the dismissive style is probably a good rhetorical trick but really, I'm hardly to be held accountable for the fact that you aren't acquainted with some fact. I don't have my copy here right now, but it's in the Routledge-Kegan Paul edition of Popper's work. And yes, Popper did not invent the notion that contradiction implies everything. What he did do, in the work I mentioned, is to present a proof that contradiction implies everything.

If you can offer up a reasonable basis for believing that a contradiction implies everything that is materially different from all possible statements would have the same truth value, I would humbly beg you to do so. After all, there is no benefit I can imagine that would justify my holding a incorrect belief in this matter.

And, by the way, I do have some takes on the implications of Godel's Proofs. I don't invest the Uncertainty Principle with much philosophic significance however.

Posted by swells | April 24, 2008 2:20 PM

johnnyd, you are almost certainly correct that I don't understand the theory I am advocating very well. At least compared to people who work in the field, I suspect I am a rank neophyte. However, one doesn't have to understand some theories particularly well to see some of the their most basic implications. For instance, I can see some implications that follow from E=MC2 without being able to build a hydrogen bomb. And, we are certainly discussing the very most basic implications of evolutionary theory here.

For instance, one of those basics is that evolution does not proceed by chance. Mutations may well arise by chance but the concepts of a mutation and evolution are not coextensive. Evolution does not proceed by chance. It proceeds by selection and retention. In short, there is a ratchet effect to evolution that makes all the difference in the world between what evolution actually is and what it actually does and your naive understanding that it is all chance.

Posted by swells | April 24, 2008 2:27 PM

MLJ -- If's religion is sham, and I suppose in your view all moral systems, and it's all just natural selection and chance -- if that's the deal, why are you outraged at torture? Why are you so outraged about everything Republican do? What reason do you have to expect anything better of anyone?

Posted by johnnyD | April 24, 2008 2:28 PM

johnnyD writes: "But human life, however much it is subject to chance, does not seem to be merely governed by chance. No one seriously believes that, and most if not all of our ethical, cultural, and social systems are predicated on our lives and acts having more moral valence than they would ever have if there were just the products of chance. That part of the human experience, as well as how we physically became who we are, needs explaining."

Inventing an explanation does not mean you have explained it, though, and there's no reason to think Genesis (or any other part of the bible) is anything but fabricated myth.

Your entire "chance" argument seems befuddled. Our social systems are no more magical than those of the bonobo. They're just more complicated and calculated because we have bigger brains than they do.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 2:29 PM

Swells - I'm not discussing what Christians or anybody else says about their particular omnipotent being. I'm just looking at whether or not the idea of an omnipotent omniscient being makes any sense at all.

To the second point, the reader exists in my universe, not in the book's universe. I'm not omnipotent with regards to him, I'm omnipotent to the things within the book. The characters would never know about the change, unless I wanted them to know.

Posted by Tel | April 24, 2008 2:35 PM

MLJ -- Bring me the Bible of the bonobo, and I will read it.

As for the "truths" of science -- come again? I thought that science was all about developing hypotheses and theories, testing them, finding ones that explain the facts better, and then arriving at new ones. I guess physics is a false religion because it shifted from Newtonian to Einsteinian to quantum mechanics. When did natural selection become the gospel?

Posted by JohnnyD | April 24, 2008 2:46 PM

johnnyD wonders: "MLJ -- If's religion is sham, and I suppose in your view all moral systems, and it's all just natural selection and chance -- if that's the deal, why are you outraged at torture? Why are you so outraged about everything Republican do? What reason do you have to expect anything better of anyone?"

These are very stupid questions that only a theist would ask, Mr. D.

I'm outraged by torture because I'm a sentient human being who has been raised in the Western tradition and I've chosen what I think are the best aspects of that tradition as my guiding moral principles. Your inane harping on "chance" is irrelevant once the notion of choice settles in.

Theistic morons like to pretend that atheism - or even secularism - inevitably leads to moral vacuums, but that's only the case in your fevered little imaginations.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 2:48 PM

johnnyD, Your assertion that some things need explaining is a good one. I do not personally think evolutionary theory is as advanced as it needs to be to account for human morality, etc. That isn't the same as my saying I don't think it can ever account for it. There was a logician who once said that science is a boat we have to constantly rebuild while keeping it afloat. In short, science itself seems in some non-trivial way to be an evolutionary process. However, I don't hold that as a negative. I think it is a positive and the reason the scientific method is far superior to other means of forming beiefs. It is a self-correcting, self-expanding enterprise.

On the other hand, it is not only the mental realm in which new forms of order can occur, that exhibit properties not previously existing. There are chemical solutions for instance, where two solutions can be put together with a result of an oscillating system that changes color in a periodic cycling. The periodic cycling didn't exist before the combination of the two solutions and so is what is called an emergent property of the system of that interaction. Nothing magic about that. I suspect that if one felt it necessary that it could be understood at the level of physical chemistry.

I think the best we can say at this time is that human consciousness is, in some way, a similar kind of emergent property, one that we don't understand very well yet. But, progress is being made and appeals to the supernatural probably are not going to be necessary to explain it.

Posted by swells | April 24, 2008 2:51 PM

MLJ -- Hhmm ... and I wonder what parts of the Western tradition lead you to condemn torture? Sure wasn't those Greeks, who gave us science. Those pagans had not qualms with slavery, torture, killing the conquered.

It seems like there really is some Jesus in the MoeLarryAnd Jesus. What a blessed day!

Posted by JohnnyD | April 24, 2008 2:55 PM

Johnny says: "As for the "truths" of science -- come again? I thought that science was all about developing hypotheses and theories, testing them, finding ones that explain the facts better, and then arriving at new ones. I guess physics is a false religion because it shifted from Newtonian to Einsteinian to quantum mechanics. When did natural selection become the gospel?"

When did creating straw men become the preferred argumentative tool of traditionalists?

"MLJ -- Bring me the Bible of the bonobo, and I will read it."

Just read the Republican Party platform instead.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 2:56 PM

"Natural selection is merely a tag for a logical tautology whereby certain chance mutations occur and enable the "fittest" to survive, the "fittest" being defined as those that survive. See, we can play these omnipotent-type logical games all day and it doesn't advance the ball one inch."

Um, wrong. Please play again after reading a few books. Thank you.

Posted by James F. Elliott | April 24, 2008 2:58 PM

Tel, I'm trying to take you seriously here but it's not a question I want to spend a lot of time on. You are welcome to spend as much time on it as you wish. I would still point out that I was talking about the omnipotent God of the Christians which is not related to the kind of omnipotence you are talking about.

I would still argue that you would not, indeed, be omnipotent in relation to your book. For instance, you cannot write your book and not write it at the same time. Either choice you made would have consequences for denizens of your book that would be different for them depending on which choice you made.

Posted by swells | April 24, 2008 2:59 PM

Re: Isn't there a corresponding rise in atheism alongside scientific advancement?

Hard to tell. It could just be that as religious institutions cease to exercise any real social control (either through explicit laws or through softer means like ostracism and disapproval) atheists are more willing to come out their closets. How many atheists would have admitted to it publicly in, say, 16th century Spain?

Re: If the Christian God is omnipotent (one of the key attributes) then by definition that God would have an infinite number of means at his disposal to accomplish any and every end in ways that do not involve evil

This is not true, and it represents a very shallow understanding of the term "infinite" (as implied by "omni-"). Consider the set of all even numbers-- infinite, no? But can God make the number "1" belong to that set? The "omni" in God's omnipotence means only that God can do anything that is logically possible. He cannot do things that are logically impossible like make an odd number even. I propose that creating a finite, independent world that is without imperfection is one of those logically impossible things as well.

Re: What sort of monster would create a sentient race while arranging the universe in such a way that most of them would end up being tortured forever?

While you can certainly find Christians who believe that way, it is not universal Christian doctrine. Since ancient times there have been Christians (including some renowned theologians) who have argued for the possibility of universal salavation.

Posted by JonF | April 24, 2008 3:15 PM

Johnny replies: "MLJ -- Hhmm ... and I wonder what parts of the Western tradition lead you to condemn torture? Sure wasn't those Greeks, who gave us science. Those pagans had not qualms with slavery, torture, killing the conquered."

Nor did most Christians, of course. If you've actually read the bible you'll find your sky fairy ordering more than one slaughter - including the genocidal (down to the last quivering infant) killing of the Amalekites.

The current pack of American torturers are sky fairy enthusiasts, too, which is no shock.

But in fact Socrates is very much a part of my pantheon. Start there, forget your silly myths, and perhaps someday you too will condemn torture and mean it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 3:20 PM

Well, it is just an analogy, but I do think that it's a pretty good argument against the idea that omnipotence is self-contradictory (whether for the Christian God, the Muslim God, Chuck Norris, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster). I do have to follow the rules of this universe when I write the book (or not). I can't write and not-write it at the same time. But the book's characters don't exist if I don't write it.

Posted by Tel | April 24, 2008 3:20 PM

Tel, understood. The argument did give me pause and made me think. That is always a good thing. I need to be clear about my own premises here. I am operating on the assumption that reality is one whole and that everything is connected to everything else, even if in a multiplicity of universes sort of way. That assumption may not be warranted. I've held it ever since reading David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order.

It is a premise I need to rethink.

Posted by swells | April 24, 2008 3:26 PM

T&S Mormon Discussion:

http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4519

Posted by Adam Greenwood | April 24, 2008 3:33 PM

Jon F, I did say earlier that it might be possible to form a coherent concept of God. The sort of god I was ruling out is one not bound by logic which is what I understand most Christians to be asserting for their god.

A god bound by logic might be one place to start on that. I do have to ask myself though, that if a god is bound by logic why not just cut out the middleman and go straight to logic. One response could be that it would keep one from having to reinvent the wheel over and over again. That's a good point. When I read the bible for instance, I try not to throw the baby out with the bath water. There's a fair amount of good stuff in there. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you for instance. The whole stone somebody if they touch a pig's skin stuff doesn't, however, qualify. So, as far as Christianity is concerned, I try to live by what's good of it and let the rest slide away.

Posted by swells | April 24, 2008 3:38 PM

JonF quotes and replies: "Re: What sort of monster would create a sentient race while arranging the universe in such a way that most of them would end up being tortured forever?

While you can certainly find Christians who believe that way, it is not universal Christian doctrine. Since ancient times there have been Christians (including some renowned theologians) who have argued for the possibility of universal salavation."

Yes, of course. But what I wrote has been (and remains) the mainstream Christian tradition. A few outlying theologians don't change that.

I do applaud the efforts of some Christians to distance themselves from some of the more disgusting elements of their religious tradition, though.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 3:45 PM

I agree completely with Dilan's comments at 2:07.

While it's fairly ridiculous to claim that evolution disproves the existence of God or the divinity of Christ, it's even sillier to claim that modern science is fully compatible with a straightforward reading of the Bible. (I'd argue that the Bible itself is internally incompatible with a straightforward reading, but that's a separate discussion). Catholics, who believe in the value of the Church as an institution, seem to handle these contradictions more gracefully than evangelical protestants, who tend to focus more closely on scripture as revelation.

But if one feels the need to graft an evolutionary account into Christian theodicy, I think the first explanation (attributed here to Stephen Barr) has a certain symmetry to it. The Fall works rather well as a metaphor for hominid evolution -- representing the point in history when man achieved sufficient self-awareness to possess free will and the point where God began to hold us morally accountable for our actions.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 24, 2008 4:12 PM

LFP writes: "The Fall works rather well as a metaphor for hominid evolution -- representing the point in history when man achieved sufficient self-awareness to possess free will and the point where God began to hold us morally accountable for our actions."

Yes, but only to a point. Remember that the god of Genesis punishes Adam & Eve for eating from the tree that gives them the knowledge of good and evil. Thus they're punished for doing something they lacked the capacity for understanding as a wrongful act.

This would be like sentencing a dog (and all of his descendants) to suffer and die for jumping on the couch after being told not to.

In Christian theology god is presumed to be good, but the god of the underlying mythology is of very questionable character.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 4:28 PM

MLJ – Start with Socrates? How? Which one? Last I checked, Socrates didn’t write anything but was rather a character in the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon and the plays of Aristophanes.

And I don’t recall him being, in any of these incarnations, a nice peace-loving, human rights respecting Christian gentleman -- as I understand you to be from the tone and tenor of your incessant moral scolding. Plato's Socrates entertained these strange ideas like philosopher-kings and noble lies that seem very illiberal and to smack of the sort of foul play for which you condemn the Republicans.

And what about his pupils, who, as you advise, started with Socrates? Look at Plato and that little teaching job with the tyrant of Syracuse; Xenophon, who led a band of mercenaries to replace the tyrant of Persia with another tyrant, Cyrus; Alcibiades, leader and instigator of that Sicilian expedition, and who also had stints serving Sparta and Persia; or Critias, who led the group of Thirty Tyrants who overthrew the Athenian democracy. They started with Socrates but didn't exactly end up where you are.

And if you actually read the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon (which is a dialogue with a tyrant), you would see that that there was a certain affinity between Socrates and tyrants. The inconsistency of his life and conduct with democracy and civil society generally was the reason, after all, why the Athenians put him to death.

You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?

Don’t worry Socrates would have loved a moral scold and avowed Bible-thumper thumper who, it turns out, was unwittingly motivated by Christian morality and tripped all over himself when he tried to explain himself.

Posted by JohnnyD | April 24, 2008 5:00 PM

Actually, the ideas of evolution explain a small part of reality, mainly the micro-evolution by natural selection within species. Beyond that they don't come close to explaining the "origins" of species or life. The Darwinists who move metaphysically beyond this to a materialist explanation of life bring us no further than Democritus and other materialists who wrote over a two millennia ago.

Moe, Larry, and Jim in condemning torture merely upholds C.S. Lewis's thesis that right and wrong prove the meaning of the universe is essentially moral, resulting from a created structure. Otherwise his view of torture is merely opinion.

People bogged down in naturalistic views of the universe should read The Beginning of Wisdom:
Reading Genesis by Leon R. Kass, a brilliant 728 page explication of Genesis.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | April 24, 2008 5:05 PM

I have little interest in jousting with the atheist potshots addressed in Theology 101, but I have to object to the sloppy usage of "universe" that posits many universes.

If we're going on the definition of the universe as "All that is," there can be only one. Talk of "other universes" destroys a very useful catch-all concept.

Posted by Kevin Jones | April 24, 2008 5:22 PM

Johnny replies: "MLJ – Start with Socrates? How? Which one? Last I checked, Socrates didn’t write anything but was rather a character in the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon and the plays of Aristophanes."

I'm not familiar with the writings of Jesus, either, chuckles. Are you really this stupid or is it an act?

"And I don’t recall him being, in any of these incarnations, a nice peace-loving, human rights respecting Christian gentleman -- as I understand you to be from the tone and tenor of your incessant moral scolding."

From your own posts I understand you to be a clueless fool, but then that's what you are. Meanwhile I'm certainly not a Christian.

"And if you actually read the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon (which is a dialogue with a tyrant), you would see that that there was a certain affinity between Socrates and tyrants. The inconsistency of his life and conduct with democracy and civil society generally was the reason, after all, why the Athenians put him to death."

Putting him to death was an act of tyranny in my thinking, but apparently not in yours. I dispute your characterization of his thinking - he was a critic of the democracy of his time but he wasn't a supporter of the Thirty Tyrants, either.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 5:25 PM

More leavittry: "Moe, Larry, and Jim in condemning torture merely upholds C.S. Lewis's thesis that right and wrong prove the meaning of the universe is essentially moral, resulting from a created structure. Otherwise his view of torture is merely opinion."

Of course Petey Leavitt doesn't think torture is wrong, since he fully supports Dumbya & the Bushpigs. This upholds my thesis that most Christians are full of shit when they claim to have a developed and non-relativistic moral structure.

Petey's morality is essentially that of Herod.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 5:33 PM

Kevin Jones says: "I have little interest in jousting with the atheist potshots addressed in Theology 101"

Of course you don't. And which theology was YOUR 101 in?

One man's theology is another's mythology. It's amazing how you can have a field of study based on nothing.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 5:39 PM

in the work I mentioned, is to present a proof that contradiction implies everything.

Popper first proved this? I'll take your word for it, I guess, but I'd have imagined it was a trivial proof even in Euclid's day, really. Certainly, if nobody proved this once symbolic logic entered the picture I am thinking that my intellectual predecessors are a bit overrated.

Seriously -- anyone with basic knowledge of logic can prove this, you don't have to cite Popper as some super-authority. It suggests something fishy rather like citing Russell and Whitehead for 2+2=4.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | April 24, 2008 6:08 PM

What I would think one would want to do if one were inclined to spirituality is to construct a religious narrative from the ground up that is consistent with natural selection.

There's something odd here. This statement is rather like Dilan saying "What I would think one would want to do if one were inclined to miniatures as a hobby is to construct a dollhouse from scratch, not to start from a kit, because you'll get a better house than if you build some old design like a Victorian or a Tudor. I mean, they didn't know much about architecture then!"

It first seems to imply that this is all sort of a "hobby" for those "so inclined." But it also assumes one epistemology to rule them all, really, and that the knowledge from empirical science useful in thinking about natural selection is very relevant to this whole enterprise in a way that it probably isn't.

It's strange. Beyond our obvious differences in other aspects, Dilan (and Moe) (who certainly have more legal knowledge and training than I do) seem to be inclined to use "empirical science" (which they don't seem to have much deep background in) as their one hammer for nailing everything (in a sense), while the somewhat more scientifically knowledgeable Hector and I are not "so inclined."

I really think some of this is the problem Newman identified of people, whether scientists or theologians or whoever, to dislike having to manage multiple epistemologies (with somewhat overlapping subjects presumably drawn from one underlying reality), and just picking one (theology or their notion of the empirical method) and stickin' with it.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | April 24, 2008 6:20 PM

Marquis:

You are assuming too much. I am agnostic, not atheist. I do think that any posited God needs to be consistent with what we know. And we know more now than we did in the past.

Thus, whereas thousands of years ago, I am sure many were prepared to believe in the Genesis creation stories and that God created the animals after Adam and had him name them, nowadays that sort of thing is not really consistent with the fossil record.

That's an obvious one. Ross' post is really good because it points to a less obvious one-- how evolution calls into question basic Christian beliefs about the nature of sin and the fall of mankind.

I think you are eliding two different concepts: (1) excluding all possibility of knowledge based on faith rather than science, and (2) excluding the possibility that science is wrong about observed and tested hypotheses and that religious texts written thousands of years ago by comparatively more ignorant people were right.

I endorse (2). I think anyone who believes, for instance, that evolution or the big bang must be incorrect despite all the evidence for these things because the Bible says so is making a gross error.

However, I have never endorsed (1). It seems to me that so long as the bounds of scientific knowledge are respected, one can posit theological explanations for things we don't know.

What I criticize is the desire to meld thousands-of-years-old beliefs to implausibly fit the bounds of science, rather than taking what science has well established as a given and taking a fresh look at what else may be out there without the baggage of old, wrong religious beliefs.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 24, 2008 6:41 PM

Thus, whereas thousands of years ago, I am sure many were prepared to believe in the Genesis creation stories and that God created the animals after Adam and had him name them, nowadays that sort of thing is not really consistent with the fossil record.

Ok, thanks (genuinely) for the clarification. I think Moe's more in the Asimov-on-a-drunk mode (which I can respect in a man, really).

I guess my problem is that there's not much bending needed on some of this -- St. Augustine didn't see Genesis as literal empirical event history, and had a fairly "sophisticated" understanding of metaphor and genre in Scripture. As metaphor for events that are utterly impossible to describe in terms comprehensible to the folks of those times and that I suspect are STILL impossible to describe in useful ways other than pure mathematics plus very broad (abstractive rather than "correct") terms to moderns, Genesis does just fine.

That is, the Biblical account isn't _trying_ to give literal narratives of anything science has since changed. The evolution issue IS interesting, in that it's not a "factual dispute" (almost impossible here, though not quite), but more of a "does this feel like it fits with that?" problem. I still think the evolution problem is much the same as the basic problem of evil, though, and not really raised (or helpfully answered by) anything we know now we didn't know then. Does that make sense?

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | April 24, 2008 6:55 PM

That is, the Biblical account isn't _trying_ to give literal narratives of anything science has since changed. The evolution issue IS interesting, in that it's not a "factual dispute" (almost impossible here, though not quite), but more of a "does this feel like it fits with that?" problem. I still think the evolution problem is much the same as the basic problem of evil, though, and not really raised (or helpfully answered by) anything we know now we didn't know then. Does that make sense?

It makes sense. I think Ross is right, however, that the evolution issue is more than simply the problem of evil but is rather an issue about the history of mankind. The Bible tells a narrative which uses history to render a conclusion about morality and sin, and Ross' post intimates that the history is wrong, so why should we believe the conclusion? That's different than simply saying "how could a good God allow evil?".

I also think you are minimizing how much is clearly wrong in the Bible. Noah's Ark, for instance, clearly didn't happen. Abraham, if he existed at all, assuredly had a background and life quite different from what is portrayed in Scripture. And it would be one thing if this were just armchair philosophy, but these issues actually play out in the modern world-- a lot of damage is done, for instance, by the belief that God permanently "gave" the Jews Biblical Israel.

But I accept your main point, which I take to be that if one doesn't think the Bible is that inconsistent with what science is telling us, my point carries less force.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 24, 2008 7:26 PM

Re: sort of god I was ruling out is one not bound by logic which is what I understand most Christians to be asserting for their god.

While there are anti-rationalist sects out there that might agree with your notion of a God not bounded by logic, traditional Christianity most definitely does not. As I mentioned, medieval Christian theologians came up with various proofs of what God Cannot Do, and the Church did not condemn them as heretics-- indeed, one of them is the official Roman Catholic theologian. More recently Pope Benedict stirred up a huge brouhaha when he pointed out that Chraitisnity's God is bounded by reason while in Islam (and in some Protestant sects) God is not so bounded, as you posit.

Re: if a god is bound by logic why not just cut out the middleman and go straight to logic.

You're close to something here. Logic is not independent of God: it is an emanation of his very nature. God cannot be illogical because God is logic.

Re: A few outlying theologians don't change that.

Um, they're not outlying, though I admit they're little read in the West. But some of these guys are among the ancient Doctors of the Church.

Re: This would be like sentencing a dog (and all of his descendants) to suffer and die for jumping on the couch after being told not to.

Would you not devise some punishment for disobeying you? And of course a reward for obeying. However, there is another viewpoint here: the punishment was not arbitrary at all, but rather was the direct consequence of the act itself. Rather like telling a child not to eat something poisonous because he will suffer and die as a result.

Re: Abraham, if he existed at

What about Abraham strains credulity? I'll grant you his age and Sarah's, and the miraculous conversations with God. But the secular details don't seem too very far off from what we know about the era in that part of the world.

Posted by JonF | April 24, 2008 10:11 PM

As a liberal Catholic, evolution forced one huge re-evaluation of my interpretation of my faith. Once I read Robert Wright, it was immediately obvious to me that many things that I'd attributed to fallen human nature were better explained as the fact that evolutionary pressures built human beings with a built-in tendency to diverge from modern Judeo-Christian morality. (Examples: (1) the difficulty many men have in being monogamous, especially if the man is high status or the wife is post-menopausal (2) the temptation many stepparents seem to have to make the home unfriendly to their stepchildren, to the advantage of their bio children (3) genocide of people of other ethnicities. There are plenty more examples.)

Basically, it became impossible for me to believe that some human decision (eating the apple!) was responsible for our "fallen" nature. It became clear to me much of the problem was due to evolution, and evolution seems to be the engine of our creation chosen by God.

Posted by Anne E | April 24, 2008 10:32 PM

JonF quotes and replies: "Re: This would be like sentencing a dog (and all of his descendants) to suffer and die for jumping on the couch after being told not to.

Would you not devise some punishment for disobeying you? And of course a reward for obeying. However, there is another viewpoint here: the punishment was not arbitrary at all, but rather was the direct consequence of the act itself. Rather like telling a child not to eat something poisonous because he will suffer and die as a result. "

No, I would not punish the dog. I think anyone who would is... what's the technical term... oh, yes, "fucked in the head."

I would chase the dog off of the couch repeatedly. Sooner or later it would get the message, I think.

Applying the punishment (back to A & E) to the descendants ad infinitum is both arbitrary and rather insane. But then I think the Fall story is simply repulsive nonsense - and it smells like a set-up on the part of old Yahhoo besides.

It's actually hard to take such intense bullshit seriously enough to talk about it seriously. These stories are interesting on many levels, but the theology arising from them is idiotic.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 24, 2008 11:01 PM

"Theistic morons like to pretend that atheism - or even secularism - inevitably leads to moral vacuums, but that's only the case in your fevered little imaginations."

Insulting your opponent while claiming that your particular world view doesn't lend itself to immorality doesn't help your case, frankly.

Posted by grigory | April 24, 2008 11:42 PM

grigory quotes and writes: ""Theistic morons like to pretend that atheism - or even secularism - inevitably leads to moral vacuums, but that's only the case in your fevered little imaginations."

Insulting your opponent while claiming that your particular world view doesn't lend itself to immorality doesn't help your case, frankly."

Since theistic morons frequently do exactly what I said they do, I think the point is worth making. Diluting my opinions in the vague hope that they might "help" some supposed case doesn't seem like a productive move.

My "particular world view" doesn't "lend itself to immorality" more than Christianity does, that's for damn sure. Though who knows what sort of trivial stuff you consider to be "immorality" - since you weren't considerate enough to really say anything about your own "particular world view."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 25, 2008 12:11 AM

A couple points:

1. The Bible--as we can access it today--is a document that has been transmitted through countless human hands: scribes, committee meetings, translators, copiers, typesetters, and what have you. Hundreds of different versions exist. Many sections have been added, many have been altered, many excised, and many destroyed. The Bible is, in other words, the product of a process of selection frequently marked by bitter strife. Is that really how the Christian Deity would convey his sacred teachings to creation?

2. Imagine if we had asked some scholar in 325 AD to carefully write down everything we knew about the natural world and had done our best to preserve that document until today. It wouldn't hold up very well by today's standards. Nor, probably, would a compendium of scientific knowledge from the year 2000 hold up very well in 3625.

By the same token, it is ridiculous for religious folks to expect that their ancient sacred texts are going to perform well as descriptors of the natural world. Whatever their inspiration, these are books of human production and they naturally have human limitations. At least that's how it looks to me.

Posted by southpaw | April 25, 2008 1:10 AM

Re: Applying the punishment (back to A & E) to the descendants ad infinitum is both arbitrary and rather insane.

Again, it's not an arbitrary punishment-- it's a consequence of the original act. And in the real world consequences can very well carry over through generations, even indefinitely. But the Fall is not the whole story. It's not asif God simply washed his hands of the world and went off to make another. The Incarnation shows us a God who is willing to join his creation in its suffering, and provide a way out.

Posted by JonF | April 25, 2008 7:22 AM

Marquis, I notice that you offerred no material distinction between "contradiction implies everything" and "the truth value of all statements is the same". The two are essentially the same statement. The fact of the matter is that "contradiction implies everything" acknowledges that the truth value of all statements is "true" if a premise that entails a contradiction could be valid.

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 7:50 AM

Peter Leavitt, you said "Actually, the ideas of evolution explain a small part of reality, mainly the micro-evolution by natural selection within species. Beyond that they don't come close to explaining the "origins" of species or life. The Darwinists who move metaphysically beyond this to a materialist explanation of life bring us no further than Democritus and other materialists who wrote over a two millennia ago."

You might want to check out Stewart Kaufmann's The Origins of Order. It's daunting but worth the effort. His basic idea is that the spontaneous origin of order might be found in autocatalysis of certain classes of proteins. I don't want to oversell his results as they are currently subject to a lot of debate and scrutiny but it really isn't the case that a "materialist explanation of life brings us no further".

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 7:55 AM

JonF, I tried earlier to grapple with what I thought you meant when you equated omni with infinite. However, to quibble, omnipotent is not exactly captured by varying conceptions of infinity. It is more of a class based concept than that. Quite literally, the predominant definition of omnipotent means all powerful or of unlimited power. Thus, my initial criticism of the idea of an omnipotent god is buttressed by your example; i.e., could an omnipotent god make an even number belong to the set of odd numbers.

It is is precisely in that form that I say one can dismiss the Christian idea of an omnipotent god out of hand. To note that some theologians have somewhere noted what god isn't capable of doesn't really refute my point.

I am perfectly prepared to accept, for instance, that life here on earth might have been devised by some advanced being. That is a hypothesis that might some day be tested and as such is well within the realm of scientific possibility. What isn't possible is that omnipotent god did it.

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 8:30 AM

Swells, I think Mr. Leavit's point is that Darwinism merely explains that if animals struggle to survive, if they reproduce, if they occassionally change or develop other means of enhancing their ability to survive, then they will be "selected" as it were for survival.

But, as this crude formulation suggests, Darwinism simply assumes all those ifs and does not explain why animals struggle to survive or reproduce, or why they like what enhances their survival (i.e., what is good), let alone why humans do. This is where a more teleological or moral or metaphysical account like the Genesis comes in.

Also, if you are interested in materialistic accounts, and one that specifically seeks to rid man of burden and evils of gods, you should take a look at Lucretius' De rerum natura. It is a uniquely elegant and compelling account of a materialistic cosmology that shows both the possibilities and limitations of that perspective.

Posted by JohnnyD | April 25, 2008 9:59 AM

Dilan - "What I would think one would want to do if one were inclined to spirituality is to construct a religious narrative from the ground up that is consistent with natural selection."

Marquis - There's something odd here. This statement is rather like Dilan saying "What I would think one would want to do if one were inclined to miniatures as a hobby is to construct a dollhouse from scratch, not to start from a kit, because you'll get a better house than if you build some old design like a Victorian or a Tudor. I mean, they didn't know much about architecture then!"

To me, if you're trying to construct a religious narrative that is consistent with natural selection, using the Book of Genesis is more like starting from a Cessna kit to build a jetliner. Sure, many of the basic tools you need are in the kit, but the blueprints are going to lead you in the wrong direction and severely limit your options. Holding on to obsolete doctrines for the sake of tradition, while accepting new sources of knowledge, requires increasingly complex rationalizations to bridge the contradictions.

If one believes that the Church is a force for good in the world and its moral teachings are sound, then cosmology only distracts from that function. I'm perfectly willing to accept Christian morality as the received wisdom of the elders -- generally true but occasionally in need of tweaking -- but that's not enough. The Bible, we are told, contains the transcendent, universal, and eternal Word of God.

Christianity isn't (merely) a spiritual movement concerned with teaching moral wisdom. It is, to be somewhat uncharitable, an afterlife cult. It expects followers to believe in the literal existence of the God described in the Bible and to treat the source text as a sacred vessel of Truth with a capital T. This belief can coexist with a modern scientific worldview, but there's always going to be a great deal of tension in that coexistence. I just don't see the point. When the baby is dead, changing the bathwater doesn't improve the situation.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 25, 2008 10:31 AM

LaFollette Progressive -- You seem to be confusing and confounding the Christian Church with a text from the Old Testament, and moving back and forth from one another willy nilly to score points.

When did Genesis become interchangable with the Christian church and doctrine? Christians, after all, view the Genesis and OT texts as superceded to some extent by the New Testament and the advent of Christ.

Despite all its religious and institutional affiliations, the text of the Genesis can be read as a stand-alone account. It can also be associated with a number of other traditions, such as a long tradition of Jewish commentary, that are very different from Christianity and not associated with the history or practices of any Christian church.

Posted by rob | April 25, 2008 10:57 AM

What about Abraham strains credulity? I'll grant you his age and Sarah's, and the miraculous conversations with God. But the secular details don't seem too very far off from what we know about the era in that part of the world.

How about his ancestry and descendants (the latter, of course, being key to modern claims about who "owns" the Holy Land)?

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 25, 2008 11:31 AM

When did Genesis become interchangable with the Christian church and doctrine? Christians, after all, view the Genesis and OT texts as superceded to some extent by the New Testament and the advent of Christ.

This is a rather simplistic statement. First of all, lots of Christians, especially evangelicals, believe in the literal truth of the Old Testament. Second, even among those who aren't literalists, many Christian sects accept a lot of it, e.g., Adam and Eve, God, Lucifer, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the special relationship of the Jews and God, etc.

It is true that Christians believe in the New Covenant, but I am not aware of too many denominations which have disavowed the Old Testament.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 25, 2008 11:36 AM

You're right, Dilan, that that was a simplistic statement. How could a one word or one sentence gloss of the relationship between Christians and the OT not be?

It's also not what I'm getting at. My point is that you cannot simply dismiss the Genesis by pointing to the practices of certain Christians or even all of them. Theirs is just one take on the book and, when you get to the Church, a lot of other factors enter in. And, because many Christians see the Genesis through the lens of the New Testament (which is the fulfillment of the law and the perfection of the teaching of the OT), and for many other reasons as well, their perspective differs significantly from those who read the Genesis humanistically, as the first book of the Pentateuch, or as part of the Jewish tradition.

The fact that the Genesis has been engaged by, and even at times incorporated into, so many different traditions and strands of thought points to how compelling its stories are.

Posted by rob | April 25, 2008 12:14 PM

The fact of the matter is that "contradiction implies everything" acknowledges that the truth value of all statements is "true" if a premise that entails a contradiction could be valid.

I never denied that. I just haven't seen where you get an actual contradiction (not just assert one, "'cause I said so") out of an omniscient and omnipotent God.

Hint: "Can God tell himself a secret he didn't already know?" doesn't do the trick.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | April 25, 2008 12:58 PM

Re: I tried earlier to grapple with what I thought you meant when you equated omni with infinite. However, to quibble, omnipotent is not exactly captured by varying conceptions of infinity.

Omni literally mean "all"-- which I agree does not necessarily imply "infinite". However even if we take the meaning of "all", my analogy still stands. We can use the word "all" in any number of contexts where some things are excluded from the category under discussion by their very nature. "All" humans does not include dogs and cats. All odd numbers does not include even numbers. This is not an abuse of language, or something irrational. Again, God's omnipotence means that God can do everything that is logically possible; it does not mean that he can do illogical, impossible things. This is not some clever sophistry of mine. As I have mentioned now three times it is the conclusion of traditional Christian theology, both East and West. You may wish to insist on a different defition for "omni" but that is simply your own preferrence, not supported by the use of the word in either Latin or modern English.

Posted by JonF | April 25, 2008 2:06 PM

johnnyD, I am perfectly willing to admit that Darwinism does not address the points you make, the why questions. That is why I recommended Kauffman's book, The Origins of Order. It does get after the why questions, not necessarily completely, but it does offer an approach.

But, I should go further. I am not opposed, in all instances, to teleological explanations. At some point in the causal chain, I think they are appropriate. I might make another recommendation here. That would be Grow or Die, the Unifying Principle of Transformation by George Lock Land. It is a systems theoretical approach to that sort of teleological explanation that makes no appeal to the supernatural and is fairly compelling.

What I do not think is appropriate, and where god stories usually (if not always) fail is teleological explanations that lack coherence. Does that sort of supernatural explanation cohere (hang together) with what we do know?

I'll try to reason by analogy a bit. Chemistry is pretty complicated. It is, in many cases, approached at a very abstract level. By this, I mean we don't usually use quantum mechanics to actually do chemistry (although there is the field of physical chemistry where the two meet).

Yet, if someone is giving us a chemistry recipe that, if valid, would contradict quantum mechanics, we are immediately suspicious of the recipe. Why is that? It is because while we may not use quantum mechanics to do macro scale chemistry, we expect macro level chemistry to cohere with quantum mechanics. Macro scale chemistry needs to comport with quantum mechanics.

I have already admitted that it might be possible to form a coherent concept of god (although I cannot think of one). What I am saying is that Christianity doesn't comport with the other things we do know and so much the worse for Christianity in that instance.

If, and when, a comporting teleological account of the why questions is formulated that coheres with what we do know, what reason is there to believe that such an account will look anything at all like Christianity? I see none. Christianity doesn't even comport with itself. It contains inherent contradictions.

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 2:25 PM

JonF, well I think you are straining at gnats here. Generally, I accept dictionary definitions of what things mean. Here are the ones I found of omnipotent.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful

"all-powerful, almighty," from omnis "all" (see omni-) + potens (gen. potentis) "powerful

having unlimited power

having absolute, unlimited power
Example: the omnipotent power of God

1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power

Only the last, #2, seems pertinent to your usage. If you want to believe in a god that has very great authority then be my guest.

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 2:33 PM

Marquis, yes, the question exactly accomplishes the trick. Either way the question is answered a contradiction is entailed. There are no other possibilities.

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 2:43 PM

"You seem to be confusing and confounding the Christian Church with a text from the Old Testament, and moving back and forth from one another willy nilly to score points."

No, rob, I chose my words very carefully and addressed the Church and the text separately. If it came off as willy-nilly point scoring, that reflects on my writing ability... not my intent.

The problem, as I see it, is that every Christian church I'm aware of continues to believe that the Old Testament is a generally true and accurate account of the nature of God and his relationship with mankind. Many churches read the stories of Genesis metaphorically and view it as background story to the New Covenant in the Gospel, but nearly all of them would consider it heretical to state that most of Genesis is fictional or untrue.

The OT is still considered scripture, which is a status that no modern writing can attain. And there is a widespread tendency to gloss over the tall tales and ignore the uncomfortable bits where heroes of the faith slaughter innocents and prophets sic bears on children, rather than grappling with the way that these passages damage the overall credibility of the messenger and the message for modern readers.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 25, 2008 3:40 PM

Either way the question is answered a contradiction is entailed. There are no other possibilities.

I suggest you read a bit more on the concept of well-formed questions. I can ask "if swells can blruabzlye ya aohtouhqr2e" -- a question with equal semantic meaning, in that it does not correspond to an actual described event. I have not just proven that your existence implies contradiction. I have asked a nonsensical non-question.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | April 25, 2008 3:57 PM

Marquis, If you can explain how a being with unlimited power is well, limited by whether questions are well-formed or not, then you have a point. Unlimited, the last time I checked, meant without limits.

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 4:10 PM

Marquis, to imply my question is semantically empty is simply stupid. For instance, I can tell myself a secret I don't already know. I can do so in the following way. 1 - Resolve to tell myself a secret based on the following recipe. I will flip a coin 2 minutes from now. I will hold my hand over the coin for one minute without looking at it. The state of the coin is a secret during that one minute. I will then look at the coin and say to myself what the state of the coin is.

There is a secret involved; i.e., the one minute when I don't know the state of the coin. I am currently ignorant of what the state of the coin will be, therefore I don't already know the secret. I can certainly say to myself what the state of the coin is after tha one minute.

This whole thing is only devoid of content when the concept of omnipotence is involved.

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 4:17 PM

Interesting conversation. I've been busy with fieldwork but I will take the time for a quick response to Swells.

Omnipotence does not include the power to do things which are 1) contrary to logic, 2) contrary to one's nature, or 3) diminishing of one's nature. For example, medieval scholars challenged the Donation of Constantine on the grounds that the Emperor, being all-powerful by definition, lacked the power to do what would diminish his all-powerful status by ceding the city of Rome.

I believe that God cannot _completely_ extinguish evil because that would diminish the perfection of God. God is defined as the most perfect being that can be conceived. One set of attributes of perfection is to have a perfect love of good and a perfect hatred of evil. If evil did not exist then it could not fairly be said that God hates evil since one cannot hate what doesn't exist. The real God would then be less perfect than a hypothetical conceivable God who gives to both good and evil their appropriate love or hatred. This is a contradiction since even in possibility or imagination there cannot be anything more perfect than God. Therefore it cannot be said that the power to completely destroy evil is a necessary attribute of omnipotence. In fact a world in which evil did not exist would be incompatible with a truly perfect God. Therefore Hell and the Devil must necessarily exist.

I'm aware that is a heterodox view so don't take it as representative of anyone but me. However I believe it's at least a logical proof that the problem of evil is not insurmountable.

Posted by Hector | April 25, 2008 4:27 PM

Hector, I appreciate your response. However, omnipotent is, for the most part, defined as meaning all powerful, of infinite power, of unlimited power and that is the definition I have a problem with. Your usage of the term is not consistent with it's definition except for one definition that defines it as of very great authority. If you want to use that definition of the word then you can. I have already admitted that it might be possible to form a coherent concept of god although I do not know of such a thing. What is not possible is to form a coherent concept of god that includes, as an attribute of that being, unlimited power.

The rest of your post is circular reasoning and as such isn't a proof. You start out by asserting that which is the point of your argument.

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 4:44 PM

Hector, I think you have to be careful with the approach you are taking. Especially the whole diminshing of one's nature thing. For instance, that puts you into the unenviable position of either having to assert the bible is literally 100% true and inerrant or asserting that it isn't god's word.

IF the bible contains contradictions, which it does, then it would be a deminshing of god's nature for it to be god's word. If it contained any falsehood, it would be a diminishing of god's nature. So, your rule three leaves you in the position of having to assert that it is 100% true and inerrant (which it isn't) or that it isn't even god's word.

Contradictions abound. I can supply as many you would like me to supply within reason, say 30 or 40.

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 6:22 PM

This whole thing is only devoid of content when the concept of omnipotence is involved.

Well, yes. The question has a context that makes it semantically problematic. Given that "a secret he doesn't know" is an inherent impossibility (given that we're assuming omnipotence), it's like asking "can God make a four sided triangle?"

The question isn't like my nonsense syllables, but it's still not asking anything useful. Actually, in a way it can easily be answered -- "no."

But God not "being capable" doing that isn't a limitation, it's simply a matter of definitions and well-formedness.

There are theologies that don't go this way, that view this as a real limitation rather than simply a kind of artifact of language being able to say things that don't have a there there -- but I think problems with contradiction don't bother those folks, here, either, since God is beyond logic by their approach, and thus a contradiction about God doesn't imply anything -- He isn't a proper term for playing symbolic logic games, in their way of looking at it.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | April 25, 2008 7:56 PM

Re: 1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power

we've already discussed the fact that an infinite set is not necessarily an all-inclusive set.

I really feel that you are setting a strawman (albeit one to which certain irrationalist sects, both Christian and Muslim, do in fact genuflect) so you can pat yourself on the back for disproving the Christian faith.
And as I am now mentioning for the fourth frigging time, Christian theology has tramped all over this ground long before you and I got here. Your objections have been dealt with.

Posted by JonF | April 25, 2008 9:48 PM

JonF writes: "And as I am now mentioning for the fourth frigging time, Christian theology has tramped all over this ground long before you and I got here. Your objections have been dealt with."

"Dealt with" is not the same as "settled." Just ask Dumbya what his "Mission Accomplished" banner accomplished.

And let's not pretend that Christian theology should e respected by non-Christians. A faith that entertains debates about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" and "which church in Italy has the genuine Holy Foreskin" has earned a shabby reputation among skeptics.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 25, 2008 10:13 PM

*** Google (www.ufodigest.com):
- Enigmatic Fossils - Darwin on Trial
- The Genesis of the Monkey People and the Genesis of the Anunnaki People
- The Heart Kidneys Theory and the Psychology of the Future
*** NASA AND PLANET X
http://www.australia.to/story/0,25197,23040466-937,00,00.html
*** The book "Planet Eris and the Global Warming" (can be found at Amazon).

Posted by cristian negureanu | April 25, 2008 10:21 PM

"how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"

TR: I'm pretty sure this is a myth and that theologians never really debated this. Even if they did so? A debate about how small things can get is very relevant to Quantum Mechanics. In string theory "Planck length" is literally the "bottom" of smallness. In others it's just the length at which our understanding breaks down. The microcosmic world isn't silly just because it's small.

And yes Christian theology should be respected by non-Christians. Just as Islamic theology should be respected by non-Muslims or Hindu theology to non-Hindus. "Respect" isn't necessarily the same as like, it doesn't even have to be the same as "tolerate." A person can respect Communism or Islamism while seeking its oblivion. I respect the intelligence of Sayyd Qutb while thinking he used it for vile purposes. If you are unable to respect one of the main forces of 20 centuries of human history than I'm not sure what you do respect.

Posted by Thomas R | April 26, 2008 3:01 AM

Re: I'm pretty sure this is a myth and that theologians never really debated this.

There's some ground in fact for the angels-on-a-pinhead debate. Medieval theologians debated whether angels occupied the physical dimensions of space and time. I believe the conlsuion was that they existed in Time (like all created things) but did not occupy space in the manner of material beings. Hence an infinite number of angels could occopy an arbitrarily small amount of space.

Re: "Dealt with" is not the same as "settled."

True enough. But this paradoxial issue of God's omnipotence is being put forth as if it were some major and recent discovery and thereby refuted Christian claims. I am pointing out that the paradoxes, which are closely akin to the mathematical and logical paradixes inherent in the concept of "inifinity", have been known for a very long time and they are kind of a ho-hum for anyone who has any in-depth knowledge of Christian theology-- whether they believe it or not. Paradoxes like this routinely crop up in the physical sciences too (see: quantum physics which is full of such conundrums) but no one cites them as proof that the whole field is a pile of taurine byproduct.

Re: And let's not pretend that Christian theology should [b]e respected by non-Christians.

Why shouldn't it be respected? It's a field of intensely erudite learning, a major human intellectual achievement. Granted if you don't accept the premises you won't accept the conclusions, but you can still respect and even admire the effort and beauty of the edifice. I feel that way about Hindu and Buddhist metaphysics. I may not believe in them, but I definitely find them admirable products of the human desire to understand the deepest aspects of our reality.

Posted by JonF | April 26, 2008 10:02 AM

The difficulty, Ross, in bringing up this topic, is that it exposes 1) just how poorly many people understand what Christian orthodoxy is and 2) how poorly people understand the claims and limits of natural science.

I'd like to get back to Millman's argument:

evolution through natural selection is extremely uncongenial to the central Christian story about the nature of sin and evil in the world. Why? Because the Christian story has the entry of strife into the world come about as the result of human sin, whereas the core idea behind evolution by natural selection is that our existence – and the consciousness and ability to sin that comes with it – is a product of strife. Put bluntly: natural selection is not the mechanism that the Christian deity would use to create man in His image.

Millman will be surprised to know that Christianity has dealt with these questions already. I refer the author to Thomas Aquinas's discussions of these topics.

1) Christian doctrine posits that the human strife mentioned above is moral evil; Christian theologians have long distinguished between moral and physical evil. An example of the latter that Thomas brings up is the need of the lion to eat the deer (let that be used as a convenient symbol of all the strife of natural selection and mutual competition); this is a physical evil ("evil" analogously understood), a lack or privation that is necessary for the common good of the universe. What is primary is world-order; and as a good Aristotelian, Thomas knew that for God to create a universe with matter necessarily entails (in the same way geometric laws necessarily entail) dissolution; matter involves movement (change), and movement involves coming into and out of being. In other words, act and potency. Death is a normal part of a material universe, and man as an animal, is involved in this finality. Call it a horizontal finality. But we observe in nature that certain lines of finality are subordinated to higher orders of finality. Call that, vertical finality. So death, in this sense, is not so much a consequence of original sin, as one of a material universe in motion.

2) Christian doctrine teaches that Adam and Eve were preserved from the natural evils (physical, not moral) of their biology by preternatural gifts, chief among them immortality. This is not deus ex machina or magic trick. It is a horizontal finality being subordinated to a vertical finality. In the Christian view, this natural world has no absolute existence; its finality is ordered to an eventual supernatural one. Adam and Eve were never intended to perpetually live as animals in the horizontal order of the material cosmos. Having souls (and according to God's intention), they were created to be elevated into a higher order. As Christian doctrine again makes clear, this was an end to be accomplished over time and by means of mankind's voluntary cooperation. Of course these are not scientific conclusions, but matters of faith (e.g. science cannot prove or disprove the existence of the soul). The Catholic claim is, they are not in contradiction to the faith.

The scientific materialists says: "Oh yes they are. We know evolution is true. Christian doctrine asserts the contrary. Therefore, it is false."

The response? Know your doctrine. Christian doctrine asserts no such thing. It does not assert a literalistic reading of the creation narrative in Genesis, nor does it posit a Cartesian god. It believes in a God who is non-competitively transcendent to the cosmos, while immanently moving and applying it toward its proper activity and final end. In the words of one of my favorite Thomists: "the differing metaphysical levels of primary and secondary causation require us to say that any created effect comes totally and immediately from God as the transcendent primary cause and totally and immediately from the creature as secondary cause."

This is a metaphysical assertion, not one of natural science. Of course the scientist so inclined asserts that there is no truth but what natural science can observe (there are only assertions of science); and of course, he has now contradicted himself.

3) According to Christian doctrine, moral evil, "sin", is a surd, non-being. It is purely a privation, a lack of what should be there, and has no positive being. Strictly speaking then, it does not require an explanation. Nor does it impinge on the (to quote Maritain) "absolute innocence of God". Physical evil is not the same, nor is its existence a problem for Christian theology. The same can be said for entropy. And so on. The order that Christian theology observes in creation is the order of a world order, a metaphysical one. (The mistake of intelligent design is to require an order that must be provided and observed by natural science.) Its finality makes use of a multitude of subordinate orders and lines of finality (e.g. the lion eating the deer; the evolution of pre-human hominidae evolving and then moving to extinction). And even God's permission of sin (i.e. in orthodox doctrine, God does not cause sin, but merely permits it) is part of the ultimate order of the universe, and is subordinated to it (e.g. Augustine's line, that God allows evil to bring a greater good out of it).

Again, much of what we are dealing with here are matters of faith, and cannot be objects of scientific inquiry; nonetheless, the task of the theologian (and the Christian scientist) is to demonstrate how what is believed by faith, and known by science, do not contradict each other.

As for those who would assert that all sinful phenomena can just as well be explained according to natural causes (psychology, sociology, biology, etc.): depends what you mean by cause. By I do not think so. See, Walker Percy's Lost in the Cosmos: science is unable to explain the peculiar nature of man's alienation, dislocation, and despair in the modern world.

4) In conclusion, according to orthodox doctrine, and a robust Christian philosophy (a la Thomas Aquinas), evolution makes perfect sense, within its limits. The mechanism in evolution of "strife" also makes perfect sense in a world of form and matter, act and potency, where things coming in and out of being necessarily entail death and dissolution. Finally, sin is not a physical evil, but a moral one, and ultimately cannot be understood as parallel with the finality of physical evil, but rather is in the proper sense, a mystery (i.e. an object of faith, and not science). Evolution is only a problem for those who either do not know their doctrine, or fail to understand the limits of their science.

As William Carroll opined: "Aquinas recognized that a world in which the natural processes are explicable in their own terms does not challenge the role of the Creator. One need not choose between a natural world understandable in terms of causes within it and an omnipotent Creator constantly causing this world to be."

No, evolution was not a problem for Thomas. As he said:

"Thus with respect to the origin of the world, there is one point that is of the substance of faith, namely, to know that it began by creation... But the manner and the order according to which creation took place concerns the faith only incidentally."

(for a further explanation, see: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0035.html)

Posted by Matthew Fish | April 26, 2008 1:50 PM

There's some ground in fact for the angels-on-a-pinhead debate. Medieval theologians debated whether angels occupied the physical dimensions of space and time. I believe the conlsuion was that they existed in Time (like all created things) but did not occupy space in the manner of material beings. Hence an infinite number of angels could occopy an arbitrarily small amount of space.

That's right. It is also important to remember that a lot of current theological debates are just as silly and formalistic and abstract, which is why the idiom "angels dancing on the head of a pin" exists in the language.

Indeed, the theological arguments used by pro-lifers to cover for their desires to regulate female sexuality are exactly these sorts of arguments, e.g., arguments about what the "essential quality" of human life is and whether a zygote has it, rather than looking at the actual being in context and asking why anyone would think it has an interest in its own life, or any interests at all.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 26, 2008 2:54 PM

Thomas R replies: "And yes Christian theology should be respected by non-Christians. Just as Islamic theology should be respected by non-Muslims or Hindu theology to non-Hindus. "Respect" isn't necessarily the same as like, it doesn't even have to be the same as "tolerate." A person can respect Communism or Islamism while seeking its oblivion. I respect the intelligence of Sayyd Qutb while thinking he used it for vile purposes. If you are unable to respect one of the main forces of 20 centuries of human history than I'm not sure what you do respect."

If you think you can respect something while wishing it into oblivion you've sucked all the meaning out of the word. For my part I was suggesting that no non-Christian should be expected to "respect" Christian theology in the sense of giving it credence or showing it deference. I feel the same way about Islamic theology and Marxist theory (which seems very much like a religion to me) and the dogma of the new cult of Saint Reagan.

I made my comment as part of an ongoing objection to the bizarre Christian claim that theology actually serves as a proof of anything, when it's really just labored nonsense which exists because of the lack of proof for religious propositions.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 26, 2008 3:16 PM

Marquis, the only formulation that I am interested in debunking is the formulation that asserts god possesses unlimited power. That formulation is nonsense. That is all I am saying here. And yes, I am quite sure that anyone who believes that will not much care that the position entails the embrace of contradiction. It may be possible to form a coherent concept of god.

Posted by swells | April 27, 2008 7:44 AM

JonF, I wonder just how much respect you would have for, for instance, some Jupiter cult. I propose the following to you. Substitute the term Osiris for the Christian God and say Isis for Jesus. Would the content still deserve the same respect from you? I assert that it wouldn't. I suspect the fact of the matter is that there is, at root, some peculiar core of your faith that is, indeed, dependent upon the specifics of your faith. Further, I would say that your objections to my arguments would be different were they aimed toward a Jupiter cult.

In a very real sense, your position is dependent upon notions like some guy had a mother who was virgin, that same guy came back from the dead, and after that floated to heaven.

All I'm saying, at root, is that the notions of your faith are no more likely to be true than is the idea that Mohammed flew to Mecca on a winged horse.

There is a difference between respecting people and respecting what they believe. If I encounter someone who truly, deeply, seriously believes that 2 + 2 = 5, I am quite capable of respecting that person as a human being without entertaining seriously the idea that they may be correct in thier belief.

Now to the material basis of a difference that I think is of crucial importance. I have never once in my life been guilty of telling anyone they shouldn't go to church on Sunday morning. On the other hand, I am having a dinner party this evening. I would like to serve wine with it. It would be more convenient for me if I could go to my grocery early and buy a bottle. However, I cannot do that before 12 Noon in the state that I live in. That is the case because Christians have been responsible for passing laws hat infringe on my freedom, that "coerce" respect for their sentiments.

All I really want is for Christians to quit forcing their assertions that 2 + 2 = 5 down my throat.

Posted by swells | April 27, 2008 8:03 AM

Re: It is also important to remember that a lot of current theological debates are just as silly and formalistic and abstract

One can say the same thing about a lot of things done out on the frontier of science, especially physics, where the terminology ranges from impenetrable to whimsical and any applicability to the real world seems remote or non-existent. The fact is though some people really do like to explore the margins of what is humanly knowable.

Re: I made my comment as part of an ongoing objection to the bizarre Christian claim that theology actually serves as a proof of anything, when it's really just labored nonsense which exists because of the lack of proof for religious propositions.

If you grant the premises theology can prove quite a bit-- just as is true in various systems of mathematics or any other field of human intellectual endeavor. Theology can't prove its onw premises (no system can do that-- no, not science either) but that's not what it's for.

Re: JonF, I wonder just how much respect you would have for, for instance, some Jupiter cult.

Why do you think I don't respect the learning of the ancient Pagans? Though to be sure the Greeks were a bit more advanced than the Romans (of Jupiter worship). Much of that learning in fact underlies Christian thinking as well as all of modern science.

Re: However, I cannot do that before 12 Noon in the state that I live in. That is the case because Christians have been responsible for passing laws that infringe on my freedom, that "coerce" respect for their sentiments.

I'm no fan of blue laws and the one you cite is silly and should be abolished. However it's hardly a major imposition: your dinner party is presumably later than 12 noon.

Re: All I really want is for Christians to quit forcing their assertions that 2 + 2 = 5 down my throat.

Nobody is doing that. You are confusing Christian theology, a purely intellectual endeavor, with the annoying tendency of some busy-body people to try to run other people's lives. That's not an urge restricted to religion either-- there are secular busy-bodies who try to run our lives too. It doesn't require even a rudimentary theology.

Re: If I encounter someone who truly, deeply, seriously believes that 2 + 2 = 5, I am quite capable of respecting that person as a human being without entertaining seriously the idea that they may be correct in thier belief.

How about the proposition that -1 x -5 = -5. That's contrary to what you were taught in school, but there's a whole system of arithmetic that uses that premise, that the product of two negatives is a negative not a positive. Be careful in scoffing at things that go outside the bounds of your own system. Some of them may turn out to be important. (I'm not sure anyone has found a practical application for Grassmann arithmetic, but we have found practical applications for non-Euclidean geometries, which originally seemed like a lot of wooly-headed nonsense 200 years ago.)

Posted by JonF | April 27, 2008 8:29 AM

Re: That's right. It is also important to remember that a lot of current theological debates are just as silly and formalistic and abstract, which is why the idiom "angels dancing on the head of a pin" exists in the language

This is really dumb. The question of how many angels can occupy a single spot in space is actually interesting and meaningful. It doesn't really have a practical application, neither do many modern debates in string theory or evolutionary taxonomy or whatever- let alone the even more arcane and silly debates that occupy fields like literary critciism.

If you accept that angels exist (and I think the evidence that they do is overwhelming) and if they are by definition immaterial intelligences, then it naturally raises the question of whether they can occupy a single point in space. It's no sillier, given the premises, than many debates in the physical sciences- and I think that the premises are quite valid.

The vision of a world at war between God and the Devil with angels and demons on each side seems much truer to reality and to our experience of the world than the vision of too many modern theologicans of the pantheistic, universalistic 'Ground of All being' or whatever.

And as for abortion the red herrings about freedom, women's rigts, sexual regulation and so forth are just that, red herrings. The main issue involves only two questions- 1) is the fetus a human being in its essential nature and potentiality, 2) is that being morally innocent, and all other points are completely irrelevant to the debate.

Posted by Hector | April 27, 2008 10:35 AM

JonF, Let me be clear, I really don't care whether someone is willing to believe that 2 = 2 = 5 until they start trying to 1) convince other people that 2 + 2 = 5 (in which case I do my best to say no it doesn't) or 2) start trying to enforce their normative positions on me or on others (in which case I make my case more forcefully).

If people have psychological problems they think are somehow ameliorated by believing absurd things, they are welcome to self-medicate however they wish to do so.

Posted by swells | April 27, 2008 11:08 AM

Hector, would you like to provide some of the overwhelming evidence for the existence of angels? I simply don't believe that such overwhelming evidence exists or indeed any evidence at all that is worthy of belief.

Posted by swells | April 27, 2008 11:18 AM

I'd like to be an athiest too, and swallow the evolution doctrine, but my faith isn't strong enough. I can't get past entropy.

Why doesn't the law of entropy operate in biology? What is the origin of information?

Please help.

Posted by Ron Kling | April 27, 2008 11:21 AM

Swells -- I think the discussion has seriously wandered far afield if the worth of the Genesis or the tradition that follows from it is tied to formalistic debates such as the logical consistency of the idea of an omnipotent god or the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I will leave it to minds deeper and more subtle than mine to resolve such fascinating and timely issues.

The truly epochal innovation of the Genesis and the god of that book is monotheism. The idea that there is one god for all men, as opposed to many gods of diverse tribal affiliations, marks a decisive turning in the history of civilization and has had a profound influence on who we are.

The upshot of the unity of god is the unity of man -- that is, that all men are potentially united and the same rather than divided among their diverse tribal affiliations. Though it took thousands of years to work out, democracy and multiculturalism arguably flowed from this unity of god and man in monotheism. Indeed, your own inclination to respect others, which owes to some lurking sense of the unity of man despite his apparent differences, might flow in large part from monotheism.

As for respect for the pagan antecedents of monotheism, I would think that you need to understand them first. Once you did, you might have some qualms with respecting traditions that, like the ancients Greeks, condoned and even encouraged the killing or enslavement of all people captured in war or, like the Aztecs, whose religion involved ritual cannibalism and human sacrifice. These profound differences between the polytheistic pagans, and the monotheistic practices of the people of the Genesis, are illustrated in the story of the aborted sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. But without engaging how these others were profoundly different, all of this talk of respect is just so much multi-cult cant.

Posted by rob | April 27, 2008 11:49 AM

Ron Kling,

The entropy argument is a reasonable ground, among others, for believing in God, but you should be aware that it doesn't constitute _proof_.

Biological evolution is not contrary to the "law of entropy" because the second law of thermodynamics operates on a global scale, not a local scale. It's completely possible for entropy to decrease all the time in a small confined area as long as it is increasing in the surroundings. We can observe this when, for example, hydrogen and nitrogen react at high temperature and pressure to produce ammonia: the product is at lower entropy than the reactants.

So it's certainly possible for the earth to be a localized system of decreasing entropy while the entropy of the universe is increasing. Of course that doesn't answer the question of ultimate causation, which requires a God. But that's a question of theology, not science.

Posted by Hector | April 27, 2008 11:50 AM

Re: So it's certainly possible for the earth to be a localized system of decreasing entropy while the entropy of the universe is increasing.

It's not even clear that this is true: it may be that living organisms plus their envirionment are the higher entropy state. In complex non-linear and far from equilibrium systems the operation of the 2nd law of themodynamics can create very complex, self-regulating "disipative structures" like living things.

Re: Once you did, you might have some qualms with respecting traditions that, like the ancients Greeks, condoned and even encouraged the killing or enslavement of all people captured in war

Well, that was a universal practice in antiquity. The Hebrews were just as guilty of it, and worse. Sorry, but I really don't buy the line that Christianity was responsible for the end of slavery. Slavery began to end when technological innovation (the windmill, the rigid horse collar) combined with circumstances (the economic and demographic collapse of the early Middle Ages) made it no longer very profitable a system of labor compared with the alternatives. Sure, Christian ethics mitigated some of slavery's worse tendencies, but you will some pagan moralists also arguing against the more barbaric practices of their day.
I will however put forth the argument that Christianity was largely responsible for the decline of infanticide in late antiquity.

Posted by JonF | April 27, 2008 1:55 PM

JonF -- You missed the part of my post that said it took thousands of years for some of the implications of monotheism to work themselves out. Even though the founding of the US was based on the principle of the equality of man, it has taken many years for the effects of that principle to make themselves felt with respect to slavery, universal enfranchisement, women, and other facets of life. In fact, this process continues today.

As for your economic-determinism explanation of the demise of slavery, let's just start by recalling that many of the founders and their successors thought, hoped, and preyed that the institution of slavery in the US would lapse into desuetude over time; that we had to fight the Civil War shows that their hopes were disappointed. Your gloss also ignores the extent to which the abolition movement in the US was a religious one.

More fundamentally, your explanation does not explain why they and others hoped slavery would disappear in the first place (or why others before them thought the institution justified). This was because they were committed to the principle that all men are equal and could not help but realize the monstrous inconsistency of slavery with that fundamental principle.

By using the term "arguably," I indicated that it was subject to debate whether the idea of the equality of man flowed from the unity of man which in turn flowed from the unity of god. That no less a document than the Declaration of Independence states that men were endowed with inalienable rights and were "created equal," not by government, nature, or some vague economic forces, but by their Creator -- this should give you some pause. There are other sources of this idea, no doubt. But I'm hardly saying anything new by making the claims I did, and you have a bit more work to do in dismissing it.

Finally, your post confirmed my larger point. Reluctant to acknowledge the real differences between mono- and poly-theists, or between Hebrews and Christians and Pagans, you tend to collapse them all together in one unified and indistinguishable mass. Everyone is equally bad and equally good.

This effort to gloss over the very real differences between peoples and civilizations precludes any genuine understanding or respect for others or even oneself. Instead, it shows how enthralled one is to his democratic prejudices. Tocqueville long along noted that central emotion of men in democracies was a "sentiment of resemblance" that saw the similarities but not the differences between men. That sentiment has lately become a passion, one that in guise of ideas animates your multiculturalism as well as the neoconservatives' democratic universalism.

Posted by rob | April 27, 2008 3:28 PM

One can say the same thing about a lot of things done out on the frontier of science, especially physics, where the terminology ranges from impenetrable to whimsical and any applicability to the real world seems remote or non-existent.

That's true enough, but the difference is, nobody's trying to pass laws screwing over women and forcing them to bear unwanted children based on debates about string theory or naked singularities.

In contrast, the "angels dancing on the head of a pin" argument about "when life begins" is used as a cover for vast regulations of female sexuality. So it's a little different.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 27, 2008 6:57 PM

But you failed to explain where the information came from. You certainly must not be asserting that order can come spontaneously from chaos, are you?

Granted, my entropy argument is not 'proof' of the existence of God; the term 'proof' really has a rather narrow meaning, usually reserved for mathematics. But you can't escape the logic here.

Unless you are willing to put forward a hypothesis of how disorder can 'create' order, you are left with accepting the fact that the information required to create/sustain life comes from outside the system.

Posted by Ron Kling | April 27, 2008 7:50 PM

Ron Kling,

I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm a Christian and I believe that supernatural causes is necessary in order to explain the origin of the universe. I was specifically arguing against the idea that evolution is refuted by the second law of thermodynamics. I believe that evolution is more or less sufficient to explain the _differentiation_ of life into the species that exist today, although I do believe that the soul is the creation of God. The _origin_ of life is a separate question which we don't understand well today and where it's reasonable to posit the necessity of God.

Posted by Hector | April 27, 2008 8:09 PM

Re: As for your economic-determinism explanation of the demise of slavery, let's just start by recalling that many of the founders and their successors thought, hoped, and preyed that the institution of slavery in the US would lapse into desuetude over time; that we had to fight the Civil War shows that their hopes were disappointed.

I don't buy into economic determinism-- but I do think that economics (and the undergirding technology) sets the limits of the possible, and that's a double edged sword. Historians of slavery have always cited the invention of the rigid horse collar as the deciding factor that put slavery on the road to extinction because horses with collars that don't choke them are more efficient sources of work than are humans for tasks that require only brute strength. And note that slavery did not disappear from two areas of the world where horses could not be used on a large scale: the Middle East (due to aridity) and Africa (due to equine encephalitis).

Re: Your gloss also ignores the extent to which the abolition movement in the US was a religious one.

I absolutely agree that abolitionism was fueled by religious passions. But only because it was possible to have a society without slavery.

Re: More fundamentally, your explanation does not explain why they and others hoped slavery would disappear in the first place

Human beings have always been aware that slavery is barbaric. You will find glosses in the ancient poets (notably Euripides) pointing to its evils. Plato's imaginary Republic had no slaves. The Buddha did not approve of slavery either. But again, slavery was a necessary evil in antiquity; such moral knowledge was bitterly sterile. We're in the same situation with war today: we know it's evil, but we can't get around the fact that it's occasionally necessary. Hence the accomodation we make with it via Just War thinking and the like.

Re: Reluctant to acknowledge the real differences between mono- and poly-theists, or between Hebrews and Christians and Pagans, you tend to collapse them all together in one unified and indistinguishable mass. Everyone is equally bad and equally good.

Of course cultures are different. That's a total "duh"! But I don't think you can judge cultures as "good" or "evil". That path of thinking leads down a very dark road at whose end lies genocide. Individuals alone have moral capabilities, because only individuals have the ability to choose-- there is no "choice" or "will" at the level of a culture; its actions are simply the sum of the myriad individual choices made within it. Now, most (all?) of us are indeed a mix of good and evil, and anyone who argues otherwise is a fool, but I will certainly agree that you can mark a clear moral distinction between Mother Teresa or Mahatma Gandhi and Giles de Raiz or Joseph Stalin.

Re: Tocqueville long along noted that central emotion of men in democracies was a "sentiment of resemblance" that saw the similarities but not the differences between men.

Don't put words in my mouth, OK? I am well aware that people, and their cultures, are different. But at the same time I also acknowledge there is such a thing as human nature, largely immutable over any humanly meaningful time span, and we all share in it, everyone of us, from the Stone Age primitives on the Andaman Islands to the most erudite scholars at Harvard and Oxford.

Re: Unless you are willing to put forward a hypothesis of how disorder can 'create' order

Why do you need such a hypothesis? If you can directly observe something happening in the real world you don't need a hypothesis to show that it exists. And who says that "information" is needed for life to arise? Or that such information is not in fact already present in some latent or inert form? No one would have suspected before the 20th century that a lump of an exceptionally heavy and rather toxic metal had enough energy locked in it it vaporize a city-- but it did, as the folk of Hiroshima bitterly learned in a bright millisecond. (Note: I am also a Christian, but one very resolutely opposed to any sort of "God of the gaps" theorizing. Gaps tend to be filled in over time, and resting religion on them does no credit to faith, and slights the real purpose of religion, which is to restore communion between Man and God, not explain natural phenomena).

Posted by JonF | April 27, 2008 9:21 PM

"Historians of slavery have always cited the invention of the rigid horse collar as the deciding factor that put slavery on the road to extinction because horses with collars that don't choke them are more efficient sources of work than are humans for tasks that require only brute strength."

I don't quite get why you're going on and on about the horse collar. Slavery existed in the American south and other regions long after the advent of the horse collar. The invention of the cotton gin helped to perpetuate the institution. More generally, the persistence of slavery in the US showed its ability to adapt to changes in technology and ideas.

I guess Lincoln had it wrong in speech to the Young Men's Lyceum when he said "all honor to Jefferson" for declaring all men equal and putting a stumbling block before tyranny and oppression and the perpetuation of slavery. He should have said -- "all honor to the horse collar."

"Of course cultures are different. That's a total "duh"! But I don't think you can judge cultures as "good" or "evil". That path of thinking leads down a very dark road at whose end lies genocide. "

How did we get from engaging the differences between cultures to judging them good and evil and, oh my, genocide? This is exactly what I meant about not engaging differences in the name of respecting them. To seriously engage the differences between civilizations is see some profound differences on fundamental questions about what it means to be human and the best order of society; I would hope it wouldn't end in platitudes such as we all have a little good and a little bad in us except maybe for Hitler. These differences provoke thought about what is the best way or preferable way to live.

That they put one on the road to judging cultures good or evil, and then exterminating them, is patently silly. Every culture prefers its own way of life but doesn't necessarily condemn and destroy those who are different.

"Human beings have always been aware that slavery is barbaric. You will find glosses in the ancient poets (notably Euripides) pointing to its evils. Plato's imaginary Republic had no slaves."

No they haven't. There is even a strand in modern western thought to the effect that the master-slave relation is the basis of human interaction and that Christianity perverted men by making them squeamish about that -- look at Nietzsche and Heidegger and the Nazis.

Many others, such as the ancients, thought that despite its rough aspects, slavery was not only necessary but a natural result of human inequality. How it came to be that this deeply entrenched attitude could change so that the opposite became the default is an interesting story. Unless of course you think that men were always and everywhere closet liberal democrats and the only thing holding them back was the invention of the horse collar.

Posted by rob | April 27, 2008 10:41 PM

Re: Slavery existed in the American south and other regions long after the advent of the horse collar.

As a peculiar anachronism, yes. And the sun does not rise on the Atlantic and set on the Pacific, nor did history begin in 1776. Usually when people are talking about slavery and Christianity they are looing back to the early Middle Ages when slavery all but ceased to exist in Europe. That is what I am addressing.

Re: No they haven't. [re: view on slavery]

Well, of course it's true that not every human being acknowledged slavery's barbarity. I never claimed that. That's true of a lot of things. Even today there are people who rejoice in war's bloody destruction.

Re: This is exactly what I meant about not engaging differences in the name of respecting them.

It might help if you explained what you are talking about and what you mean by "differences". Are you engaging in moral judgment or just in noting that things aren't the same eveywhere? I will agree with you if you say that Chinese and English are different languages (though I will point out that there are underlying language universals that they share). I will not agree if you tell me that English is morally superior to Chinese or vis versa.

Re: Many others, such as the ancients, thought that despite its rough aspects, slavery was not only necessary but a natural result of human inequality.

Right. People justify necessary evils so they can feel better about them. See: Just War theory for a similar effort that holds sway even today.

Posted by JonF | April 28, 2008 7:23 AM

Hector, Ron Kling, JonF, et al. I have yet to see why it is necessary to posit an origin of the universe. Is there any contradiction that is necessarily entailed by believing the universe to be infinite?

It makes the most sense, from the perspective of holding premises that do not entail contradictions, to think the universe has always existed and will always exist. There is no compelling reason to suppose that it was created.

Anyone who believes in god already believes that something has existed forever and will exist forever. Just dump the useless construct of god and believe the universe has existed forever and will exist forever. If you absolutely insist that everything must come into existence at some point, then you left with the question of when god came into existence.

The question about how order arises is a good one and one that needs much more study. My naive speculation is that order and disorder are two sides of the same coin (as are matter and energy) and that cycles between one and the other are no more troubling than are waves in an ocean.

Posted by swells | April 28, 2008 7:35 AM

Rob, I don't have much trouble differentiating between societies that are good and evil. The society in Saudi Arabia, for instance, is evil. It treats females as chattel property of their husband.

I use as my criteria for making the distinction the point that Aristotle made in his Nichomachean Ethics concerning what makes an organism good. His point is basically that what makes an oak tree a good oak tree is a consideration of how near the potential maximization of an oak trees potential is achieved by a particular individual oak tree. Same with humans. Under this view, a society that stifles a human's ability to maximize their growth vis a vis being human is less good than a society that does not so stifle the potential of it's members growth.

The standard is a little vague I admit but I think servicable none the less.

Posted by swells | April 28, 2008 7:43 AM

Swells,

An infinite universe, without energy/information from some outside source, would violate the law of entropy.

You hint at a hypothesis of 'waves'. Can you flesh out your ponderings for us?

Hector, JonF,

Glad to know you are Christians, but without an acceptance of the Bible as literal truth you are on shaky ground. Without a literal fall of Man, our need for salvation becomes hazy.

I suggest you read an interesting book called "In Six Days". 50 scientists from various disciplines contributed. It lays out solid scientific arguments for acceptance of the Bible's account of creation. Check it out. I know it goes against the grain of what we've all been taught in school, but read it with an open mind and I think you'll be astonished.

Posted by Ron Kling | April 28, 2008 9:02 AM

Ron Kling, I can only assume that you use the term entropy in its physical sense as opposed to its information sense. In the physical sense, entropy is a measure of a systems inability to perform work with the energy that exists in the system. So, I am not all sure that your conclusion that an infinite universe would violate "the law of entropy".

For instance, I see no reason whatsoever that there could not be a type of "convection" flow at work whereby highly ordered arrangements are reimposed on disordered (high entropy) matter and energy. Now mind you, I am not saying that I know what is on the other side of a black hole but it certainly seems feasible that the matter and energy disappearing down a black hole and passing thru its singularity would come out the other side about as ordered as anything could get to be.

So, while in the space/time outside a black hole entropy may tend to increase, it seems completely possible, at least to me, that black holes reorder and vastly decrease the entropy and make that decrease available in some other bubble universe and that that bubble may well be supplying the increases of entropy to the bubble universe we occupy by virtue of black holes in it.

Mind you, I am only speculating here and have no concrete idea that what I am saying is the way things are. I'm just proposing a thought structure that might provide a means of cycling entropy thru periods of increase and decrease that in the aggregate would represent a steady state but in the specific instance would be what we experience.

I guess all I'm really trying to do here is to show that there could be ways of having entropy decrease that comport with the reality we experience without entailing contradiction.

Posted by swells | April 28, 2008 11:14 AM

Ron Kling, I went and read some reviews of In Six Days. It appears to be a rehash of a lot of flawed thinking and hence probably not worth taking the time to examine it. There is only so much time in life and one really must prioritize one's use of that time.

However, I admit that reading reviews isn't the same as reading the book. So, if you could present like the top 5 reasons it gives that creation was actually accomplished in 6 days, I might change my mind about the book's value and take the time to read it.

Posted by swells | April 28, 2008 11:23 AM

Marquis, the only formulation that I am interested in debunking is the formulation that asserts god possesses unlimited power.

Well, the problem is that you don't seem to (A) understand, as others have pointed out, much mainstream orthodox Christian theology or (B) grasp the difference between "limits" that are in some sense purely formal artifacts of language being able to phrase questions that are non-questions and real limitations. Thus you think you've debunked the _Christian concept of God _ when, in fact, you've done no such thing. This is mildly irritating.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | April 28, 2008 11:57 AM

Marquis, I think you are mistaken. I think the main representation of the Christian God put forth by organized Christian religion is one of a God of unlimited power. I could be wrong about that but I don't think I am. That is what I wish to debunk. I wish to debunk that notion because a god of limited by logic turns out to be not much of a god at all and pretty much complete superflous.

Look, I can easily understand that you may be irritated by the situation since it appears that you believe in this Christian God. However, if that God was the creator, it would be appear to be his own fault that I can do things he can't, like learn something new.

Posted by swells | April 28, 2008 12:34 PM

However, if that God was the creator, it would be appear to be his own fault that I can do things he can't, like learn something new.

Ok, you just don't know enough of the ideas and background here to discuss, really. Have you ever heard of act and potency, or the various (somewhat more formal) variations introduced since Aristotle and company? Shouldn't you do some bloody reading (other than the one Popper book, I guess) before arrogantly thinking you've debunked an entire theological tradition.

I mean, you sound like a creationist who's "taken down" evolutionary biology. The analogy is fairly close, in some ways, for the slightly (but not greatly) educated version of a creationist.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | April 28, 2008 1:46 PM

Swells,

A God that is limited by logic is still powerful enough to create the world out of nothing, to raise Lazarus from the dead, to become incarnate of a virgin, to rise from the dead, to heal the blind and crippled with a touch, to create the human soul, and to kick your ass into Hell if you misbehave. I would think that God would be worthy of your worship but then that's just me. 'Superfluous' indeed.

God may be limited by the demands of logic, morality, and His own perfection, but he is assuredly not bound by the laws of physics and of nature which is all that counts.

Posted by Hector | April 28, 2008 2:57 PM

Marquis, believe it or not, I do understand your point. However, to understand your point is not necessarily to grant it the same relevance or potency that you do. I do indeed understand that vast reams of apologetics have been written trying to salvage at least something consistent with godliness as an attribute of god once unlimited power is ruled out.

Here's what it looks like to me, irrespective of what Aquinas, C.S. Lewis or others had to say on the matter. A god of unlimited power is not comportable with logic. Oh shock, oh horrors! Oh heavens, how can I possibly hold onto something that will fill this big empty hole in my heart where my dread of being mortal resides? Why, I can postulate that god cannot do anything that is impossible and bingo magico, all the contradictions go away and I can continue to pretend that that which is vacuous is mighty morphin power ranger style important and will cause me to live forever anyway and so there.

There is simply no reason to postulate a creation of the universe and therefore, no need to postulate a creator. More than anything else, people do so for two reasons. They don't want to die and they want to have some conceptual framework with which to comprehend their place in the universe in order to answer their why questions.

Where is it written that the universe comes with a guaranteed answer to why or the promise of eternal life? The only place I can think of is the febrile imaginations of human beings and vast reams of apologetics don't make it otherwise.

I understand that believers really, really, really want to believe and have gone to great lenghts to do so. None of that makes it one whit more likely that Jesus had a virgin mother, that Jesus came back from the dead, or that Jesus floated to heaven. Just as the vast reams of Islamic commentary make it not one whit more likely that Mohammad actually flew a winged horse to Medca.

Posted by swells | April 28, 2008 4:19 PM

Hector, you may wish to rethink that comment about God not being bound by the laws of physics. That is actually one of the strains of apologetics of which Marquis is so fond; that God is indeed bound by the laws of physics(perfections is consistent and so inconsistency would be imperfection is kind of the short hand version I think). If I remember correctly, Polkinghorne was in this camp.

Posted by swells | April 28, 2008 4:31 PM

That is actually one of the strains of apologetics of which Marquis is so fond; that God is indeed bound by the laws of physics

Er, no.

I don't think God is bound by the laws of physics, and find it an uninteresting concept. God is """bound""" (not really) in the sense that God cannot "do" acts that (A) aren't really acts and (B) imply a defect in His perfection. This is "bound by logic" in one sense -- no, God can't make four sided triangles, because that's like asking if God can &@48(@7387237 -- a nonsense question. But God as limited by physical laws is rather silly, IMO. I mean, pleasant and intelligent men, like some of the deists, have believed it, but I find it a bit dumb at some level -- logic/semantics we might believe to be non-contingent, and we can certainly have problems with non-questions. But physics seems clearly contingent.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | April 28, 2008 7:52 PM

Ron Kling,
No, I do not need a literally inerrant Bible, because I have, in the Church itself, the Great Tradition that is inspired and protected by the Holy Spirit. Hector and our host here also belong to churches that say the same (albeit they have some different nuances on that Tradition). The Bible after all is the product of the Church, and it is the Church that interprets the Bible, so literalism is not required-- and never was insisted on until certain modern day revisoninist sects arose which, denyng community, sought to empower the individual to be his own church, and suddenly discovered a void where tradition and authority should be, hence the need to insist on literalism.
As for the Fall, no one needs the myth of Genesis ("myth" is not a perjorative word there) to be aware of it. One need only survey the news, or, if honest, one's own self, to realize beyond question that humankind is a dreadful mess and falls far short of what it could be.

Posted by JonF | April 28, 2008 8:50 PM

Swells,

I don't believe that I am misusing the concept of entropy when I apply it to information. Complexity does not arise from disorder; in fact, information tends to be lost through transmission and iteration. For macroevolution, for instance, to be possible there must either be information supplied from outside or some other mechanism for overriding entropy. Unfortunately for you, such a mechanism is outside the laws of science.

Along the same lines, an infinite universe is impossible because of the law of entropy. Even your speculation about an infinite series of universes, connected by black holes re-ordering and recycling energy and information would fail to overcome entropy, because in the end you still are left with a closed system at the mercy of natural laws.

An infinite, always-existing universe is also illogical for another simple reason: every effect must have a cause. You cannot logically have an 'uncaused effect', but you can have (in fact, MUST have) a First Cause.

You may not be ready yet to admit that the First Cause is God, but you must admit to the existence of a first cause unless you are ready to abandon this basic principle of science and logic. If that's the case, then no further debate with you is possible or possibly fruitful. You will have abandoned rationality.

BTW -I have not read the book [In Six Days] as yet, but I have it on good authority - a very bright physicist of my acquaintance - that the book is 'interesting', even 'astonishing', certainly thought-provoking. Maybe we could save time if you were to go ahead and tell me the 'flawed thinking' that is rehashed in it.

JonF,

If the Bible is the word of God, it must be inerrant. If it contains errors, how can we be sure it's the word of God or know which parts to pick out to put our faith in?

I'm very glad you are a Christian - please don't let me become a stumbling block to you in any way - but your position is just as illogical as Swells's. Go deeper.

Posted by Ron Kling | April 29, 2008 1:10 AM

Re: If the Bible is the word of God, it must be inerrant.

Inerrant, but not necessarily literally so. The Old Testament especially was traditionally considered allegory and prophesy pointing to Christ, and it Levitical Laws were regarded (by Jews and Christians both) as specific to Israel, not to all humankind. And as I wrote the Bible must be interpretted, and that interpretation should be done communally, not just by every individual giving his own take on it.

Posted by JonF | April 29, 2008 6:36 AM

JonF, I am sympathetic to the idea of interpretation having communalistic aspects. It is certainly the case in science at least. And it is obvious that for meaning to take root in anyone's mind that interpretation must occur.

However, I do see a difference between the communalistic interpretations of science and those of religion. If inconvenient facts come along in respect to the "revealed wisdom" of science then so much the worst for "revealed wisdom". That does not seem to be the case for religious interpretations. Religion starts out by asserting the end goals of it quest. Science does not profess to know at it's outset what results will obtain.

To me, this difference is critical as science puts humanity in it's proper role as discoverers rather than fulfillers of preordained ends.

Posted by swells | April 29, 2008 7:50 AM

Marquis, perhaps I should have spoken more carefully. I did not intend to imply that I knew what your level of preference for Polkinghorne's approach. All I intended to say was that you are fond of apologetics.

Posted by swells | April 29, 2008 7:52 AM

Ron Kling, In what way, precisely, does the idea of a closed system apply to a system that is infinite? I don't think you will be able to give a coherent answer to this question. Your points about entropy depend on your being able to do so.

Posted by swells | April 29, 2008 7:57 AM

JonF, Your point about inerrancy is, to my mind, a facile evasion. Let's take one simple example drawn strictly from the New Testament. Jesus was proclaimed to be without sin. It was also stated that Jesus cast devils from some poor tormented soul into a herd of swine and thereby caused those swine to drown themselves in the Sea of Galilee.

I think it is impossible to square those two assertions in any sensible way. Surely any being with sufficient power to move demons from one being to another had some choices available that made it unnecessary to move those demons into swine. Say something like causing the demons to dissipate in the wind or to inhabit a rock. On this analysis, casting the demons into the swine was surely a sinful act. Sinful in the sense that so doing was an unnecessary cruelty to animals. I think by any sensible definition being unnecessarily cruel to animals is sinful, don't you?

So what would be a sensible understanding of this situation? That Jesus was divine and possessed of extraordinary powers capable of working such miracles and didn't know that pigs aren't intrinsically evil but were often carriers of trichinosis through no fault of their own?

I contend that it makes more sense to view the casting demons story as a fabrication made up by someone so thoroughly embedded in their own culture, which held pigs to be evil, that it simply never occurred to them that, at a later date, it would be understood that pigs aren't evil but simply subject to being carriers of trichinosis.

And yes, I am aware that apologists have suggested some approaches to the problem here. When they do, they are engaging in after the fact ratiocinations in a desperate attempt to slavage their theory in the face of facts that don't allow them that.

Posted by swells | April 29, 2008 8:20 AM

Swelled,

In other words, if I am unable to explain the concept of entropy to you, or why an infinite universe is logically impossible - in words that you can understand - then my assertions must be false.

You, my public-schooled friend, are not equipped for this discussion.

You imagine a universe in which natural physical laws obey your wishes, yet you disrespect the faiths of others.

You are stupid. But please don't take undue offense to that word. I don't mean to be insulting; I mean that in a strictly clinical sense.

Posted by Ron Kling | April 29, 2008 3:53 PM

Ron Kling, as I suspected you cannot state coherently how the idea of a closed system is relevant to an infinite system when it comes to entropy. That is not surprising since the two are not much related.

If you have any knowledge of entropy at all, you will know that it is a statistical measure. There is nothing that says it is impossible for all the molecules of gas in a flask to spontaneously arrange themselves in the lower left quadrant of the flask. Just that it is very unlikely. However, consider the nature of probability and infinity. Any event that has a non-zero probability will occur an infinite number of times in an infinite amount of time. After all, an infinity multiplied by any non zero number is still infinite.

You really should learn a little about these things. You are embarassing yourself.

Posted by swells | April 29, 2008 5:00 PM

Ron Kling, there are a couple more points. I generally think it would be kind of silly to expect the laws of physics to respect my wishes. I get much better results by conforming my wishes to the laws of physics.

Also, in general, I only disprespect faith that is not respectable. For instance, someone who believes that they exist is, as far as I can tell, having faith. Their faith doesn't entail a contradiction. For them to believe they don't exist would entail a contradiction. I respect their faith in their own existence, no problem.

Also, please understand that while I do indeed disrespect many beliefs I encounter, I don't disrespect the people who hold those beliefs. I generally try to engage them as I have a kind of faith in my fellows, that it would at least be possible they could change their mind if they had information that made doing so seem sensible to them.

Posted by swells | April 29, 2008 7:45 PM

Re: Your point about inerrancy is, to my mind, a facile evasion.

Swells, I'm sorry I can't play along, but since I am not a Biblical literalist, I'm not the right person for your trip up with these conundrums. The ancient answer to any passage in Scripture that makes God seem silly or wicked is that the passage is not to be taken literally, but has some deeper allegorical meaning instead.
As far sa the Gadarene swine go, I've never considered the "cruelty to animals" aspect. But I suppose I could point out that the pigs died more cleanly and quickly than if they been butchered for someone's dinner table. If cruelty to animals bothers you, you might do better to complain about things happening right now, today, on a scale that dwarfs anything that happened in antiquity. I myself eat rather little meat, in part because of such concerns.

Posted by Jonf | April 29, 2008 8:00 PM

Swollen,

I have explained to you how an infinite universe is not logically possible, and you have made no attempt to refute me.

I have explained how every effect must have a cause, therefore there must be a First Cause, and you have made no attempt to refute me.

Let's try this: Can you please explain the exceptions to the third law of thermodynamics that only you seem to be aware of? Can you explain any exceptions that you know of in which an effect needed no cause? Can you provide any instances in which entropy has ever been overcome or does not operate? Can you provide any examples in which disorder has spontaneously given rise to order?

You say Any event that has a non-zero probability will occur an infinite number of times in an infinite amount of time

I say those things above have a zero probability; and I also say you don't have an infinite amount of time to work with. Show me my errors.

As to your swine argument with JonF - you said I think by any sensible definition being unnecessarily cruel to animals is sinful, don't you?

What makes you think so? On what basis are you determing what 'sin' is? Please give us your sensible definition and why you think it is so.

Posted by Ron Kling | April 29, 2008 9:22 PM

Swill,

Also, I'd really like to hear more about your infinite chain of universes and black holes hypothesis that you think explains the exceptions to the laws of physics that you see. Please elaborate.

As far as I know, the existence of black holes is still very theoretical and there are various kinds postulated. Perhaps you could tell us how the various kinds form, how they operate, and what effects in our universe they are responsible for. Do they both increase and decrease entropy in our universe, or are there other structures or phenomena involved to balance things to the zero entropy you see?

Please enlighten us, O foil-helmeted prophet!

Posted by Ron Kling | April 29, 2008 9:34 PM

"Sinful in the sense that so doing was an unnecessary cruelty to animals. I think by any sensible definition being unnecessarily cruel to animals is sinful, don't you?" swells

TR: In Judaeo-Christian traditional animals are generally deemed not to have souls. From my perspective animal cruelty is only a sin in what it says about their person. There's no indication in the story that Jesus did this because he took sadistic glee in drowning pigs. In addition the pigs would likely have died anyway, violently, and probably to feed the Gentile conquerors.

There has been times the story bothered me though because it's essentially destruction of someone else's property, which could border on theft. However even though Jesus knew pigs weren't evil he did recognize them as symbolic of uncleanliness/impurity to the Jewish people. Hence it could be seen as an act of purification both for the possessed man and the people. Maybe even for the swineherd if being a swineherd was turning him from good habits that'd make him a better person. Granted I can see some problems in this theory.

Posted by Thomas R | April 30, 2008 4:06 AM

JonF, I do understand that there can be some debate about my example of the swine. I was making the case that if Jesus had the power to cast out demons then it is at least worth considering that casting them into swine was an act of unnecessary cruelty and hence sinful. One would think that even a moderately powerful god would avoid this kind of appearance of impropriety and do something less likely to cast doubt on the sinless nature of Jesus. On balance, it strikes me as much more likely that someone simply made the story up and never even considered that the issue might come up later because it never occurred to them. Not a likely behavior even for a god that is all powerful except for not being able to violate the rules of logic.

The same would apply for Jesus cursing the fig tree that wasn't bearing fruit when he wanted it to even though it wasn't the right season. And yes, I do realize that some tortured apologetics exist for this case too.

I also think it is pretty clear that Jesus lied. After all, Jesus said that if you believe in him and pray for something that your prayer will be answered. I think that was in Mark 11:24. But you know what, not a single amputee has ever had a limb regenerate. Now either no amputee that believed in Jesus ever prayed to get their limb back or Jesus lied. I guess both are possible, but which is more likely? This line of thought is addressed very thoroughly at the following web site: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Posted by swells | April 30, 2008 8:10 AM

Ron Kling, please understand one thing here. I am not saying I know the exact nature of the universe. It is you who are making that assertion. I am offering alternative hypotheses, brain storming as it were. The black hole idea was intended to point to one possible explanation of how entropy might be reduced thru strictly physical mechanisms as an alternative to the idea that "only a god could do it". I make no claim to know what comes out the other side of a black hole, I'm only saying maybe a lower entropic state might. It's a thought experiment intended to offer a reasonable alternative to a pretty preposterous claim that you make.

As to entropy, you need to get a bit of a grip. First, I don't know that the universe is infinite. Again, I'm attempting to offer a reasonable (as in it doesn't necessarily entail a contradiction) alternative hypothesis to a claim of yours that seems pretty preposterous to me. I've stated pretty clearly that IF one takes the premise that the universe is infinite THEN your claims about entropy make no sense. Entropy is a statistical measure. It is a measure of probability, of likelihood. The very nature of quantum mechanics implies that things can simply move from one place to another for no apparent reason. Quantum tunneling and Hawking radiation would be examples. Brownian motion would be another. Hence, it is always possible that items will spontaneously arrange themselves in some order. It is possible but highly unlikely.

However, given an infinite amount of time (as in an infinite universe) the highly unlikely nature takes on a different character. It actually switches from being highly unlikely to being as virtually certain as anything can be. More formally, I think it can best be stated that the probability of such highly unlikely events occuring asymptotically approaches a probability of one. That is because, irrespective of how small a probability might be, an infinity multiplied by a non-zero number yields an infinity. It turns out that "highly unlikely" is a concept that only makes sense in a closed system, that "highly unlikely" isn't a concept that much applies to an infinite system.

To be fair, I should point out that even with a probability asymptotically approaching one, these "highly unlikely" events, in an infinite system, would be vanishingly rare. Still, it doesn't surprise me that we exist in such a rare sttae. We simply wouldn't be here to comment on the non-rare states. That is kind of a reformulation of the anthropomorphic principle to apply it to the circumstances I postulate, but I think the reformulation is probably apposite.

Now, your postulation of a First Cause, flatly contradicts the notion that everything must have a cause. Pretty obviously, your First Cause has no such cause, so pretty obviously not everything has to have a cause. See what I mean by entailed contradictions? I think we are logically compelled to accept that not everything must have a cause since attempting to do otherwise entails contradiction. If not everything has to have a cause, why can't it be the universe that didn't have to have a cause. Why the heck is god a necessary postulate? The simple answer is that god isn't a necessary postulate.

By the way, when people start calling me swill and swollen I simply take that as evidence of their beginning to come to realize that they might be wrong. They so desperately want to be right, to resist change, that they get frustrated and project their frustrations onto me. At least, that's the way I see it.

Posted by swells | April 30, 2008 8:46 AM

Smells,

Every effect must have a cause.

That statement is demonstrably true. That's pretty basic stuff. It does not say that every cause must have a cause. It's perfectly logical to say there must be a first cause - unless you postulate an infinity of time, of course.

An infinity of time, however, is not logical because of what is known about the laws of thermodynamics. An infinity of time or an infinite universe would violate some basic principles that have been well-established.

Sorry, my friend, but you are mistaken. Entropy isn't just a 'measure of probability' or somesuch.

And I'm a bit sorry about making fun of your handle too, but why can't you stand by your ideas like a man, with a real name?

Posted by Ron Kling | April 30, 2008 9:10 AM

Ron Kling, Swells is just like Rkling would be. My name is Steve Wells.

From a quick check of Wikipedia about entropy, "Quantitatively, entropy is defined by the differential quantity dS = δQ / T, where δQ is the amount of heat absorbed in an isothermal and reversible process in which the system goes from one state to another, and T is the absolute temperature at which the process is occurring.[5] Entropy is one of the factors that determines the free energy of the system. This thermodynamic definition of entropy is only valid for a system in equilibrium (because temperature is defined only for a system in equilibrium), while the statistical definition of entropy (see below) applies to any system. Thus the statistical definition is usually considered the fundamental definition of entropy."

Posted by swells | April 30, 2008 10:06 AM

Ron Kling, while I suspect that your dichotomization between cause and effect is a false dichotomy, (can you point to a cause that is not an effect or vice versa?; i.e., it's a matter of perspective) I will let that slide for now.

Even accepting your terms, what reason is there to suppose that the universe is an effect? There is none unless you assume it had to be caused.

Posted by swells | April 30, 2008 10:19 AM

Ron Kling, I think I may see where you are having a problem with the whole entropy thing. Why wouldn't an infinite universe eventually run down; i.e., an infinite universe seems logically impossible to you. You may find the following information helpful, again from Wikipedia on the topic of zero point energy.

"In physics, the zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may possess and is the energy of the ground state of the system. The concept was first proposed by Albert Einstein and Otto Stern in 1913. The term "zero-point energy" is a translation of the German Nullpunktsenergie. All quantum mechanical systems have a zero point energy. The term arises commonly in reference to the ground state of the quantum harmonic oscillator and its null oscillations.

In quantum field theory, it is a synonym for the vacuum energy, an amount of energy associated with the vacuum of empty space. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is taken to be the origin of the cosmological constant which is thought by many to produce dark energy. Experimentally, the zero-point energy of the vacuum leads directly to the Casimir effect, and is directly observable in nanoscale devices.

Because zero point energy is the lowest possible energy a system can have, this energy cannot be removed from the system. A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a field, i.e. its ground state, which is non-zero.[1]"

Please note that this zero point energy of the vacumn has been experimentally observed so it isn't something people are just pulling out of their arses.

Posted by swells | April 30, 2008 10:44 AM

Steve,

You asked "what reason is there to suppose that the universe is an effect?

We live in a universe of cause and effect, my pre-Christian friend. The evidence is all around you.

And yes I am aware of zero-point energy. What do you suppose caused that state of affairs?

But it doesn't go against entropy or the other physical laws we understand, which an infinite universe and/or infinite time, or an uncaused effect, does.

----

Here's a fun thought experiment, unrelated for the most part to the above:

You know what happens to an object traveling at or near the speed of light, as regards relative time, right?

Well, ponder this - what is the effect on a particle of light? How might this have a bearing on the size/age of the universe?

Enjoy.

Posted by Ron Kling | April 30, 2008 11:12 AM

Ron Kling, saying that we live in a universe of cause and effect does not establish that the universe is an effect. Unless you insist that every part of a whole must be exactly coexstensive with the whole, then certainly it is the case that parts can be different than the whole. You assumption that the universe had to be caused is only an assumption and one that leads inevitably to contradictions and hence is an assumption that isn't acceptable on any logical basis.

Please remember that I am not the one pretending to knowledge I don't have. I do not know why zero point energy is what it is. You are the one that claims that; i.e., because god made it that way. It is a pretense to knowledge that you do not possess.

Posted by swells | April 30, 2008 11:45 AM

Steve,

You said You assumption that the universe had to be caused is only an assumption and one that leads inevitably to contradictions and hence is an assumption that isn't acceptable on any logical basis.

Please give examples of these contradictions.

Posted by Ron Kling | April 30, 2008 11:50 AM

Ron Kling, Okay. First of all, the universe isn't a thing. The universe is everything (at least in it's classical formulation and leaving aside concepts like parallel universes or bubble universes). My source for that statement is the definition of universe: "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm" which I got from dictionary.com.

So, assuming the universe had to be created is to suppose that "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space" had to be created. If you postulate that god exists ("to have actual being" from dictionary.com) and is the creator of "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space" then you are left with the following. On the one hand, you are saying "the totality of known or supposed objects or phenomena throughout space" had to be created while saying at the same time that some phenomena or object that exists (has actual being) didn't have to be created. That's a contradiction.

You can, of course, assume that the "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space" didn't have to be created and the contradiction does not arise.

If living in a universe of cause and effect is evidence of anything, it's probably evidence that the universe is both cause and effect, like every other cause or effect you can identify.

Posted by swells | April 30, 2008 1:13 PM

Ron Kling, in re: Well, ponder this - what is the effect on a particle of light? How might this have a bearing on the size/age of the universe? If I remember correctly, photons travel at the speed of light, which by the way, is not constant. The speed of light in a vacumn is different than the speed of light in, say, water. As far as I know there is no down side limit to the speed of light (think light trapped in a black hole) and might even reach negatives but there is an upside limit; the speed of light in a vacumn.

In the upper limit case, one would suppose that no time at all passes for a photon, that a photon is therefore timeless (not in time). I don't know about other cases (and it's probably the case that time is an irrelevant concept for photos in all cases) but it is certainly an interesting idea to think about.

Photons don't have mass but they do have momentum and photons interact with particles that do have mass. So, I'm not sure what to make of the situation.

Posted by swells | April 30, 2008 1:35 PM

Ron Kling, my last post had a dumb mistake in it. Light failing to escape a black hole has nothing to do with how fast the light is traveling, it has to do with what constitutes a straight line in a curved space. So, I can see no reason to think that light could achieve a negative velocity. My bad.

Posted by swells | April 30, 2008 1:52 PM

Steve,

You said assuming the universe had to be created is to suppose that "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space" had to be created. If you postulate that god exists ("to have actual being" from dictionary.com) and is the creator of "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space" then you are left with the following. On the one hand, you are saying "the totality of known or supposed objects or phenomena throughout space" had to be created while saying at the same time that some phenomena or object that exists (has actual being) didn't have to be created. That's a contradiction.

There is no contradiction. The Creator is not part of His creation. To suppose that He is would be a contradiction. The maker of a thing is never a part of the thing made. That would be a silly idea. God, as creator of space/time is logically outside of space/time.

And of course 'everything' [in the universe] is a 'thing', in the same way 'something' or 'anything' are 'things'. The universe is, in fact' a thing.

The universe is a universe of cause and effect. That is quite obvious (and you haven't yet given an example of an uncaused effect; as if there were such a thing!).

And since we know that every effect must have a cause, we can logically infer that there must be a First Cause. Even if we had an infinite universe [which we know is one of cause and effect](but we don't, as I have already shown), we would still logically have to have a first cause. However, how can we have a 'first' in infinity? So this is yet another layer of absurdity to the ideas of both an infinite or an uncaused universe.

Another idea is that the universe somehow created itself, but this is logically absurd because it would have had to both exist and not exist simultaneously at some point.

A related question is, how was God created? But as I have shown, a cause does not need a cause. God is the First Cause, not an effect. God also could not have created Himself, for the same reason the universe could not create itself - God would have had to both exist and not exist simultaneously, a logical absurdity.

There is no escaping the conclusion that God (or at least a First Cause, if you prefer) MUST exist, and exists in the infinite, while our universe is not infinite.

-----------

As to the light question:

Light is something of a paradox, behaving as both particles (photons) and as waves, depending on how we look at it. And I think it's pretty cool that light was the first thing God created when He began our universe, but that's just my personal feeling.

Photons, by the way, do have mass. You can show this quite simply by observing that gravity affects it.

Or they don't, when they act like waves ....

But anyway, I don't have the math ability to explore it, but I find it interesting that, according to modern physics, particles traveling at the speed of light would more or less experience no time, as you said. Couple that with the Biblical idea of God 'stretching out the Heavens' (which we know is possible to do with the fabric of space/time) and I wonder if it might be possible to show that the universe is, indeed, much younger than it appears. Just an idea to ponder.

Posted by Ron Kling | April 30, 2008 9:46 PM

Swells,
God always answers prayers. Sometimes he just says "No" to us. Why do you think he is under any obligation to do what we want 100% of the time? He is God, not a slave to humankind's whims.
As far as your complaint about Jesus cursing the fig tree, I think you are really grapsing at straws there. What moral principle (in any religion) demands that we we abstain from harming plants? Even the Jains do not go that far. I am unaware that I should be confessing sins every time I weed my garden and pick tomatoes from it.

Posted by JonF | May 1, 2008 6:30 AM

JonF, actually what Mark 11:24 says is this. "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

That's a pretty clear statement and seems pretty straightforwardly to establish a contract that applies 100% of the time. Now either no amputees have ever prayed for their limb back and believed that they received it (considering the number of people who believe the bible and have lost limbs I'd say that's highly unlikely) or Jesus lied. The most sensible explanation to me is that the bible is a mixture of made up just so stories with some truth and a good bit of fiction.

As for the fig tree, I was not suggesting that causing the tree itself pain was sinful, since I have no reason to suspect that trees feel, I was suggesting that Jesus acted in a fit of pique for no good reason which is a sin.

Posted by swells | May 1, 2008 8:34 AM

Steve,

You never explained how you determine what is sinful. I'm truly curious as to how an athiest decides what is sinful and what is not. What does the word 'sin' mean to you?

Posted by Ron Kling | May 1, 2008 8:46 AM

Ron Kling, I determine what a sin is by doing what I do for other words. I go to the dictionary and look it up.

By the way, I posted a kind of longish response to you that is being held for approval by the moderator.

Bottom line, believe what you think you ought to believe. You are responsible for what you believe. It's not an honest discussion at this point. You won't acknowledge that entropy is a statistical thing and that entropy isn't an obstacle to an infinite universe because doing so would mean your argument is invalid. Okay, so be it. But, there's no further point to the conversation if it's a dishonest conversation.

Posted by swells | May 1, 2008 9:55 AM

Um...yeah....

Ya got nuthin', huh?

Posted by Ron Kling | May 1, 2008 11:15 AM

Swells,
Once again you are treating me like a Biblical literalist. I'm not, so it doesn't phaze me in the least that the passage you quote is (probably) not literally true. Indeed, I'll point out a problem with a literal reading far greater than your amputee example: what if an impatient heir prays for the death of his rich relative? Are we to expect that God will assist at murder?
By the way, you have not provided any context for the verse, so I have to wonder if the context might clear some of this up. Perhaps Jesus did not address this pasage to the entire world for all time, but only to a few disciples whom he trusted not to pray for things either foolish or wicked. Also note the subjectivity (..."that you believe...") and the future tense. This is not a straightforward passage at all. The future tense allows that some prayers, like those of your amputee, might still be answered, perhaps in the Resurrection.
I am not insisting on any of these alternatives, only pointing out that if one is not a rigid literalist one will not be bothered by the sorts of conundrums you cite.

Posted by JonF | May 1, 2008 7:44 PM

JonF, I understand your point. I do still find it curious that there is no record of any prayer that is for something where coincidence can't play a role having been answered. While you may not be a literalist, certainly you are aware that many are and certainly you are aware that many people claim their prayers have been answered and they've gotten what they prayed for.

It's just that it's never, ever something where coincidence couldn't be responsible. Things like amputated limbs, etc.

Wonder why that is? Strikes me as being most likely that prayers aren't being answered but that instead all such cases are purely coincidence.

Posted by swells | May 2, 2008 7:37 AM

Swells,
Is there such a thing as an event that can't be attributed to coincidence?
Seems to me that when religious skeptics are confronted with claims of the miraculous they first try to explain the event away as a fraud, or if it's too well documented for that they claim it is due to some rare and poorly understood natural process. In your example, there are other animals which can regenerate limbs, so such a thing in a human being would not 100% impossible and could also be passed off as due to a "miracle" of nature rather than of God.
Mind you, I think a certain skepticism is necessary and important, in all matters. And in religion it's necessary to guard against frauds and charlatans, including sincere ones (Benny Hinn, Grigory Rasputin etc.) But if the bar of skepticism is set too high, and then raised again if anything threatens to surmount it, I don't see that as intellectually honest either.

Posted by JonF | May 2, 2008 6:39 PM

JonF, Well your point is well taken, to a degree. It is probably true that someone regenerating a limb would be subject to the bar raising you mention. However, that doesn't really change the fact that no amputee has ever regenerated a limb even though it is higly probable that many amputees have been serious believers and have prayed for that. There is a difference there. It's not even a subject for debate until it happens. Which it hasn't. Wonder why that is.

Posted by swells | May 5, 2008 7:35 AM