The Problem Of Evil
I’m having an interesting discussion over at “Young Earth Creationists Anonymous” with my Christian-turned-atheist friend, Tom. Being raised in the apologetical tradition of presuppositionalism, the problem of evil was never really a problem for me. In other words, I was never forced to wrestle with it like those who are testing the waters of theism. But as I become more scientifically informed, I have to question (or revisit) more of my traditional Christian upbringing - especially those doctrines which were formulated during a time when the 6,000 year-old earth was thought to hang suspended in mid-air while the heavens whirled about it. As a result of this serious reflection, skepticism, and doubt, I’ve had to let go of some things while my faith in other areas has become stronger.
A scientifically-informed view of God’s providence is somewhat nuanced from the traditional reformed view. The overwhelming majority of providence falls into the category that has been traditionally known as ordinary providence. The regular patterns of material behavior, which I refer to in BTF as the patterns of providence, are the means by which God’s providence ordinarily manifests itself. I believe that ordinary providence is all that God needs to manage the internal affairs of the material cosmos. I believe that everything that happens in this world, right down to our thoughts and emotions, is a consequence of mater in motion. As my friend Tom says, “…a particular dance of molecules…” can produce abstract feelings like pain, pleasure, and empathy. I have no problem with that. But rather than remove God from the process, ordinary providence reveals God continually upholding and sustaining the cosmos so that even something as complex as this neuro-dance is intentionally choreographed to produce our concept of individual “self”.
As offensive as it is to some Christians, that the cosmos could gradually arrange itself in a step-wise fashion to produce this level of organic complexity from the primordial chaos without any discontinuity (after the initial singularity) in the laws of nature is one of the most beautiful truths science can reveal. It shows us a creator who can sink each ball on the break, rather than one who must contemplate each shot based on the outcome of the previous shot, or one that has to move some balls around when nobody is looking as creationism demands. For the theist, such a beautiful emergence and evolution of life from inanimate matter is no accident. When God brought the cosmos into existence from nothing, it had no choice but to reflect the order and character of its creator. Since these same forces ultimately led our existence, the character of the universe — and thus the character of God — is hardwired into us! This is traditionally known as the “image of God” in man — which is still a useful phrase even though it has its roots in a less scientifically-informed creation account.
This explains not only our deep connection with the rest of the cosmos, but how we think God’s thought after him. Our thoughts, emotions and ability to create are but a clumsy shadow of God’s attributes, imparted to us through a natural order that also reflects that same character. For instance, we all reason based on a common set of rational principles that are part of the fabric of spacetime. We all share the same basic moral context. We all have the same sense of what is right, what is fair, what is just — even though we might split hairs over the particulars (usually because of religious differences). Nobody voted on these unwritten laws of reason and morality. They are just there. And we know when we’ve got them right because they resonate with the rest of the created order.
However, if God’s providence were strictly limited to that which we call ”ordinary” then theism would really be deism. But in the Christian tradition, the creative and sustaining force behind the cosmos (aka: God) actually puts on flesh, is born through a woman, subjects himself to the human condition, and experiences all of the same pain, suffering, injustice, unfairness, hate and evil that mankind can dish out. He didn’t do this to free us from the harsh realities of the physical world, or provide us an escape from reality. HE DID THIS TO LEGITIMIZE/ENDORSE THE INEVITABLE REALITIES OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD BY PARTAKING OF THEM HIMSELF!
Now back to the problem of evil. There is an underlying assumption that tragedy is something that God ought to spare us from. Thus, when accidents happen for no apparent reason, we shake our fists at heaven and ask questions like, “where was God!” or “why didn’t God intervene?” But let’s think about this for a minute. What would life be like if all creatures were insulated from tragedy? What if we were all protected from the ordinary patterned behavior of the physical cosmos (necessity) and the sometimes foolish, careless, or evil choices of others (contingency) by a divine force-field? Could we have ever evolved in a world without pain, suffering, cruelty or death? Could we have ever reached this point in our journey if life was without risk or reward? Or if cause and effect were not certain? Life if beautiful because of these things! We cherish every moment because our existence is fleeting, not because it is free from danger or insulated from tragedy.
So the answer to the question of “where was God?” is this: “He was right there all along — sustaining and upholding the very laws of nature that conspired against our continued existence!” After all, whether we die in a horrible accident, or live to be 100, we all eventually fall victim to ordinary providence. Now, invoking ordinary providence might seem like a cop-out. But what else, in his infinite goodness, should we expect God to do? As somebody who leans heavily Libertarian politically, the government that governs best, governs least. I don’t want the state to baby-sit me. I don’t want to be shielded from my own stupidity and not be allowed to dare, to risk, or to carve my own path. Obviously we should, as much as possible, be protected from the carelessness, stupidity, and evil of others through laws that punsh evil. But there is little a law can do to directly protectly you from evil (which is why I support the 2nd amendment). Likewise, the blessings of cosmic liberty suggest that God is right to let the chips fall, even when they crush us. That’s the deal. And I doubt that anybody who shakes their fist at God would much appreciate living in a “padded-cell” cosmos governed by a “nanny” God who never lets us play outside in the mud.
There are many form of theism, but it’s the answer to the other question that is uniquely Christian. The answer to the question of “why didn’t God intervene?” is this: God did intervene — He put on human flesh and shared the best and the worst of the human experience with us! The Cross goes well beyond sympathy or empathy - which is the extent of our human response to suffering and tragedy. At Calvary, the creator of the cosmos identifies with our suffering by voluntarily subjecting himself to tragedy. And being raised from the grave and appearing to many, we can accept death, suffering and tragedy as a necessary part of the deal. And neither is death the end of the road.
So the “problem of evil” is really not a problem for Christians. At least we have a context that can objectively identify it — even if it doesn’t always make sense to us. The “problem of evil” is more of a problem for those who reject the idea that we are a necessary consequence of a cosmos intentionally designed to produce beings whose thoughts reflect the character of God himself. Apart from this, something like “evil” has no objective context. Concepts like evil, pain, suffering, unfairness and injustice have no universal meaning unless they preceded us. If they are ultimately fabrications of our own social convenience, then we can conveniently change them or ignore them whenever it suits us. And why should tragedy even bother us? Why should injustice outrage us? Why should we feel sick when we visit the Holocaust Museum? I can see more carnage across the mall at the Natural History Museum. There was far greater loss of life during the Chicxulub impact 65 million years ago than all the wars of man combined. Does anybody lose their lunch over that tragedy? So why does a tiny room full of shoes have the power to move us? As long as we still have time to spread our genes, why should we care? Why get outraged? “Evil” then, is just some sappy sentiment that theists use to scare people into altering their behavior. In a universe governed by blind, pitiless indifference, why should we worry about evil?
August 9th, 2008 at 5:55 am
Gordon,
I just finished reading a book called “The Sacred Cosmos” by Terence L. Nichols (ISBN: 1587430460) that you might find interesting. His main intent is restoring a view of the universe as “sacred”, as opposed to purely mechanistic. He talks a lot on free will, and how its made possible again through what science has discovered in quantum mechanics.
That’s the best way I can describe it, but I think this one would be right up your alley!
Keep up the good work!
August 9th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Indeed, philosophical debate about evil often proceeds with the deck stacked beforehand. We accept the assumption that there is nothing worse than pain and suffering, no possible result of an event worse than death.
But most cultures throughout history (including the cultures that gave us the Bible), have believed there are plenty of things worse than death.
Our misunderstanding is commonly reflected in our Western understanding of the cross. How many Good Friday services have you been to that described in gruesome detail just how painful the crucifixion was, telling us how he had to push himself up with his feet to breathe, how much flesh was torn because of the cat of ninetails, etc? Or how about Mel Gibson’s passion movie? Talk about graphic violence.
Certainly Christ’s death was extraordinarily painful. But I challenge you to find one statement in the New Testament that points out or emphasizes how excruciatingly painful his death was. You won’t find one.
On the other hand, you will find statements all over the place about how Jesus was humbled/humiliated in his death. This is because Jesus’ choice of humility over honor is much more significant to the Bible’s original readers than his choice of pain over comfort. To them there are plenty of things worse than physical pain.
Furthermore, I have been reading straight through the Bible and am in the middle of Kings. And I have not found one tiny hint of concern for the afterlife or trembling fear of death that we in Western culture are obsessed with. We think of death as the worst possible result of life, but to the ancient Israelites, there were plenty of things more important than life’s end, such as concern for your descendants. I think they were smarter than us, because eventually death comes for us all, no matter if it is soon or far off!
This leads to some problems for people who rely heavily on the certainty that there can’t be a God because of evil in the world. I have watched numerous YouTube videos from atheists who show pictures of starving children in Africa and challenge us to “tell those kids there’s a God.” Apparently these kids would have been better off never being born???? Chances are the kids already believe in God, so I don’t have to tell them there is one. But I challenge an atheist like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgNmPY4fxp8) to go relate to those starving kids what is said in his/her video: If there was a just God, he would not have created you, because your life would be better off never happening. I’ll go out on a limb and say the kids disagree.
Obviously, people suffering as a result of the unfair dealings of men is a tragedy that the church should be ashamed of not doing enough about. But to argue that the presence of pain and death proves there is no God is to make two mistakes:
1. It devalues the lives of these starving children, because it diminishes the value of the very gift of life, telling starving kids that if there were any justice in the world they wouldn’t have been born.
2. It wrongly imposes our attitude about what ultimately matters most on the majority of cultures in the world who didn’t think like us at all. It’s a philosophical arrogance to say that we know what’s really bad and good compared to non-Western peoples.
Of course, this doesn’t solve the problem of evil. That discussion is still a good conversation to have. But your post, Gordon, and what I’ve said, illustrates some problems with the debate as it’s usually carried out.
–Joe (thoughthatch.com)
August 10th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Gordon,
I have been doing research and analysis regarding the problem of evil as well. Not so much because it threatens my walk, but because I want always to be ready with an answer, and while I can easily explain things to like-minded Christians, those answers do not seem to address the skeptic’s challenge to it all… and the “logical” side of me (my fleshly side to be frank) understands the lack of satisfaction in presenting what my spirit knows without doubt.
If I were an atheist, I know what my attitude would be. Evil would not matter in any cosmic sense, but given how mankind has evolved, it makes my life easier to treat things as if there were good and evil… it makes me more likely to survive, and it makes society more likely to survive when they can agree what to call “good” and what to call “evil”. The final judgement of what’s what wouldn’t really matter as much as what can we all agree on. (Naturally, if one looks at what societies tend to agree on, over and over, it’s a direct reflection of God’s image within us, but if I were an atheist, I’d be completely blind to that truth, so would just reject that next step as “unnecessary”… a typical atheistic retreat to Occam’s Razor.)
My next observation would be that many religious traditions, while similar in nature (reflect our similar evolution) cannot agree completely. I would argue that the differences would not exist if God did (though of course, these differences are exactly because God does exist, and He created us with free will… a free will to sin even. Again, for the atheist, the argument is “unnecessary”).
So, here is where I’ve being going, in attempt to take a step back, and perhaps have a deeper understanding of this “problem” from God’s perspective (though God would hardly call it a problem)… it seems to me that Heaven is the end game. Paul refers to finishing the race, and exhorts us to run so as to win (though only one actually does win… and by my reckoning, that One is Christ, who won for us all).
Now, I do not believe that we would all be given different lives on earth, if only to be worshipping automotons in Heaven, so I am theorizing that we will all be worshipping God differently and uniquely. From there, I theorize that our lives down here is shaping us in some way, and preparing us to worship God in Heaven, as He is shaping us to do. If I am correct about that, then that would seem to be God’s ultimate purpose in how the life of every Christian unfolds. But then here is where I get stuck… how does that play into the non-Christian? the one who does not go to Heaven? The options are they go to Hell or, what I have referred to annihilationism (where even their souls/spirits cease to exist after death). Also, I believe that relegating the shape of our spirit to the outcome of our life on earth is an oversimplification; I think our life our on earth is a reflection of our spirit as it already is… a sort of feedback loop, which from the perspective of an eternity that exists outside the universe (and therefor outside the universe’s time-line) is not a problem for me. And that’s as far I have taken it.
As for my goal, it is not to come up with an argument that will sway an atheist, but rather to sway those with whom this rings true at some place deep within them, so that they might come to (or come back to) God.
If you any further insights, I would be interested in what they are… even if it’s just, “You’re thinking too much.”
Along these lines, I invite you read my most recent post: http://www.geocreationism.com/2008/08/04/reflections-what-is-life-choosing-to-live-in-the-light/, where I explain through analogy who atheists and Christians see life differently, and why Christians come in so many flavors.
All part of the journey, eh?
God Bless
August 10th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Here’s the link without the comma:
http://www.geocreationism.com/2008/08/04/reflections-what-is-life-choosing-to-live-in-the-light/
August 11th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Gordon,
Thanks for the link to my site! Sorry to join the conversation a couple days late, but it was a busy weekend (and did you see the opening ceremony of the olympics?)
There is a lot here, but what it boils down to really is what you call “ordinary providence”. This is identical to what I would call Mother Nature. It encompasses the material world, which includes thought, pleasure, pain, empathy, etc., just like “ordinary providence” does for you. You seem confident that God is in these transcendent-yet-materially-based processes. It’s the mind-body problem — that the spirit is separate from the body and the spirit is the Image of God.
Here’s my problem with that idea. Every molecule would also have the image of God. Granted, you may say any molecule is a tiny reflection, and that we humans, built with lots of molecules arranged just so, reflect the image of God better than any other organism, but even viruses would have a smidgen. Let’s say this is true. Viruses could have been a principle driver of making us better apparitions of God by plugging in DNA to make us more complex and by getting rid of less fit individuals. We would still be left with a system where suffering was introduced, pain was a struggle, and death a necessity. In your scenario, God’s image would include doubters, troublemakers, and what we would call “evil” to evolve Good people. Is that what is meant by Gen 3:5 to “be like God and to know good and evil”?
You also say in response to one’s question “Where was God in a tragedy?” that “He was right there all along” by becoming human and dying. You will need several blog posts and books to fill in the gaps for me here. Why was God needed to become human by this particular virgin and at this particular time? What was fulfilled if “ordinary providence” was the status quo before Jesus’ life and since? As a spin on “HE DID THIS TO LEGITIMIZE/ENDORSE THE INEVITABLE REALITIES OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD BY PARTAKING OF THEM HIMSELF!”, what difference does it make if we see God getting a taste of his own medicine?
Concepts like evil, pain, suffering, unfairness and injustice have no universal meaning unless they preceded us.
If they preceded us, then they would have to be God, right? In which case, you have a problem with evil….
If they are ultimately fabrications of our own social convenience, then we can conveniently change them or ignore them whenever it suits us.
History seems to show that this is true — that laws and the response to unfairness and suffering are implemented by the state, and also that states inflict suffering and unfairness on subjects and would-be enemies. It’s cultural evolution. (If we were several small libertarian states, unable to have a large representative government, we might have to duke it out amongst ourselves. However, larger, representative governments might be able to plug along diplomatically.)
And why should tragedy even bother us? Why should injustice outrage us? Why should we feel sick when we visit the Holocaust Museum?
If your answer is “ordinary providence”, then I would say that materialism is identical.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Joeopinion,
I appreciated your perspective on the crucifixion. I’ve heard many of those “painful” sermons before. I also believe your perspective on our predilection with an eternal spirit is both a Western and even a New Testament subject. Since you are bound to read through the Bible before I do, let me know if you come across Old Testament passages that run counter to my thinking.
Regarding the video, you are right, that to show injustice and suffering does not mean that there is no God. It does, however, get at a number of questions about God if you believe he exists. For one, why was Joe’s spirit put into a body of an upper middle-class American family and Tom’s was born into a foodless, waterless African’s? What does it mean to be saved or not in this kind of context? As another point, that suffering like this occurs (again, seemingly randomly — these children did not choose to be born African) indicates that God is far removed and could be a deity of deism rather than theism. If God is a personal God, then we have to ask why prayers are ineffective or how they should be made, if at all.
That being said, I agree it was in poor taste that this video was done. It used these poor people to push an agenda, not to help them. While I personally don’t mind the command to stop praying and do something, that’s where the video ends. It doesn’t say what (non-proselytizing) charities are worth checking out or where to go for more information on how I can help, which is what I would have expected if there was an intent to help.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Tom,
Thanks for the reply, but I still think you are “over-thinking” this. Examples:
“It’s the mind-body problem — that the spirit is separate from the body and the spirit is the Image of God.”
I probably opened myself up to that criticism by not being more clear. “Mind” is an abstract word that we give something we don’t undertand: how a particular dance of molecules and neurons constitutes one’s self. But I still believe that the phenomenon is strictly a material one. The contingency that results from one’s will, I believe, is some sort of quantum uncertainty/randomness amplified on the macro-level by our physical brains. Therefore, when our physical bodies cease, we cease. However, the Christian’s hope has always been in the resurrection, not in ultimately reaching a disembodied “spiritual” state. As Joepinion says, there is little about the afterlife in the OT and the NT was heavily influenced by Platonic (mind/body) dualism. But I think a scientifically-informed ontology can put these silly fabrications to rest. N. T. Wright has written along these lines from the evangelical perspective, Nancy Murphy has from the neuroscience perspective. You, Tom, would love to read anything by Nancy Murphy, by the way…
The imago dei, then, is not anything immaterial. But is the material consequence of a universe that tends towards complexity and organization, as the result of being created and sustained by an intelligence who acted with a purpose to imprint part of himself onto his creation. So everything does have the image of god stamped onto it to a lesser degree than do humans - who can actually create art, music, literature, etc… And yes, this even includes those who bend and twist this image to do evil. Even Hitler had a plan, a vision - as morally bankrupt as it was.
“You also say in response to one’s question “Where was God in a tragedy?” that “He was right there all along” by becoming human and dying.
I didn’t say that. My respons to that qeustion was indeed that “He was right there all along” - but merely as evidenced by the patterned behavior of the material world that led up to the tragedy. And by not intervening, he maintains the physical integrity of creation, something that is a net positive for humanity as a whole (it always nice to know what the rules are, and that they won’t change mid-way through the game - even if we ultimately lose by these same rules). But that was only the ordinary providence side of the coin. The incarnation was the answer to the question, “Why didn’t God intervene?” - intervention was on the cross, not via a personal divine force-field. You confused my two answers to my two questions. Do your stated objections still stand?
“…what difference does it make if we see God getting a taste of his own medicine?”
This is where I think your being unfair. On your site, I questioned what good our thoughts really do for somebody who has just suffered thorugh a tragedy. Your response was that by showing sympathy/empathy, we give comfort to those who are suffering by identifying with them in their grief. So presumably, you would give me kudos for simply thinking about those who are suffering. Now we have the creator and sustainer of the cosmos, not just “thinking about our suffering” - but actually partaking of the worst of it to meet the demands of cosmic justice that should fall on us. But to this you ask, “what difference does it make”? I think you’ll have do the explaining :).
Jesus experienced a separation from the father (hell) that is the endpoint of a life trajectory spent running from God - yet He was one with the father from the begining. As a result of this switcheroo, we no longer have to practice religion in the traditional sense (working to appease the gods), they have appeased themselves on our behalf. To a modern, enlightended, western person - this merely seems like “divine child abuse” - but in eastern “honor” cultures, only blood could cancel out such a debt. To them, a simple “hand-waiving” forgiveness (ie: no really, it’s cool, my bad…) would have only demonstrated that God was weak and his standards were flexible. No such entity would have been worthy of worship. Since the event happened in a particular time, in a particular place, and within a particular cognitive environment, we are forced to evaluate it on those terms, and not against our modern western cognitive environment. Certainly you wouldn’t say that our western/scientific culture is superior to all others, would you?
“If your answer is “ordinary providence”, then I would say that materialism is identical.” — YES - thank you (now we are getting somewhere). In Christian theology this is known as “common grace.” This is why we can share in the same human experience regardless of our different life philosophies. But for the Christian, God goes one step further than simply maintaining an orderly material universe. He tears spacetime and inserts himself into our world to demonstrate that we no longer have to keep “doing things in our own strength” to appease him. He fulfilled the requirements himself so that we can get on with life. He took the fall, so that the Ancient Near-Eastern honor culture to which He came could get of the hook and save face at same time. We enlightend moderns might not understand all of the face-save theatrics, but nevertheless, all Christ asks in return is that we recognize this, stop trying to earn favor, and live lives of gratitude (evidenced by living in peace withour our neighbors and extending to others this same grace and forgiveness that we have been shown).
I’ll let joepinion respond to those other comments.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Gordon, thanks for the response.
I’m a bit confused on some of your definitions and ideas and think these should be cleared before continuing much further. Are spirit, mind, and soul equivalent constructs? To me they are, and as abstract as they are and as transcendent as they feel, they are not separate from the material world and our bodies. It sounds like this is also your stance, but I want to be sure. If it is, it seems like you are at odds with other Christians who believe in disembodied spirits. (It also raises a lot of questions about what happens to the spirit when you die, which is a big part of Christianity).
The imago dei, then, is not anything immaterial. But is the material consequence of a universe that tends towards complexity and organization, as the result of being created and sustained by an intelligence who acted with a purpose to imprint part of himself onto his creation.
This sounds like Intelligent Design to me, or little i.d. if you want to be cute.
As Cliff Martin is starting to address at his blog, the problem of pain or evil is a toughy for the Theistic Evolutionist. If God inscribes the imago dei via evolution, or even more aptly, if we say natural selection is at least in part the imago dei, like it sounds you are saying, then it sounds like God purposefully employs pain and constrained resources to make us better. Nothing wrong with a bit of elbow grease, but to have the validation that this is the best mechanism of success because of Jesus’ humanity is yet another call to faith — See, God himself became human and died; therefore this must all be part of the plan.
The reason that evolution works is because there is no plan — what tends to live and reproduce tends to live and reproduce.
He fulfilled the requirements himself…
In the world where we imago dei apparitions interact naturally and evolve each other, just doing the “ordinary providence” thang, what needed to be fulfilled? I know this gets into Adam and Original Sin which is for a different discussion, but it seems like you are saying evil existed before life evolved. Indeed, the problem of evil and the problem of pain may be two separate, but easily confused issues. For example, we can say that pain and fear are generally good things, because our avoidance of pain pushes us in more positive directions, and in fact, we would not understand pleasure without pain. You need a Yen and a Yang. As well, Evil and Good both draw on pain and pleasure. The thing is, pain and pleasure both evolved. So, if there was a plan, then God’s plan was for us to experience both pain and pleasure and He couldn’t have been too surprised that Evil would also take advantage. Now, I say Good and Evil are human constructs that also evolved (and are evolving). If they pre-existed, a principal battle for the theistic evolutionist is to determine how natural selection is the best tool that God used to combat evil. Is it simply that since life that tends to reproduce tends to give life that reproduces equates to the fact that complete evil leads to complete loss of life, and therefore a “free” system that can combat evil by trial and error of mere survival will ultimately lead to a class of molecules impenetrable to evil?
August 11th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Tom,
I am what you might call a “physicalist” when it comes to personhood, but I must qualify that as being nonreductive. And you are correct that this is contrary to the majority of modern Christendom, but then again so is believing in evolution - so now I guess I have two strikes against me!
However, I believe this “nonreductive physicalism” to be consistent with the expressed intent of the Old Testament. Some of the NT authors seem heavily influenced by Greek (Platonic) dualism, and it appears as though God accommodates some of his language to the cognitive invironment of the first century Greco-Roman world. To see some of the scholarly work done on this, follow this link to a presentation called, “Neuroscience and the Soul” –
http://www.counterbalance.net/neuro/neurintro-frame.html
“The reason that evolution works is because there is no plan — what tends to live and reproduce tends to live and reproduce.”
I agree, but would qualify it with this: the reason that evolution works is because there is no micro-plan. This doesn’t negate the possibility of a maco-plan if the universe is tuned to encourage the emergence of complex organic chemistry. My use of the terms “macro” and “micro” are somewhat tounge and cheek, but I can’t really think of anything better to use at the moment. Let me explain:
Let’s say that we have a puddle of water on top of hill. Our macro-plan is to get the puddle of water down to the bottom of the hill. We know that because gravity is immutable, all we need to do is peturb the puddle from its stable position at the top so that it seeks an alternate stable position at the bottom. Yet, because of contingency (randomness), there is no way to predict exactly what path the water will take, or what it will look like when it inevitably makes it to the bottom. And there is no need to. IT WILL GET TO THE BOTTOM ONE WAY OR THE OTHER — according to the macro-plan.
According to a strict reductionist physicalsim, there would be no contingency. Perceived randomness is only an illusion. Not being able to predict the path would simply be a computational limitation, not a reflection of any inherent randomness. God does not play dice — ever! Everything is predestined from the bottom up.
However, a non-reductionist physicalism recognizes that while matter and energy are necessary explanations of all we see, they are not sufficient explanations. In other words, the evolving world we inhabit is perfectly consistent with the laws of nature, but we couldn’t predict this exact univese starting from the 4 fundamental forces of nature acting on the big bang singularity - no matter how much computing power we had at our disposal. So this top-down nonreductive causality introduces novelty by way of contingency. That is why evolution works. But that doesn’t discount the overall plan of the emergence of complexity, even organic complexity, to the point of concienceness.
The answer to your question, “what needed to be fulfilled?” has nothing to do with science. Perhaps that is why my answer didn’t satisfy you? I don’t think I could answer this any differently than I already did above.
Are we coming to a mutual understanding of our mind/body/soul/spirit definitions?
August 11th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Here is another link for my readers interested in what I mean by nonreductive physicalism. The presentation can be advanced by click the text under “More” at the bottom of each page.
http://www.counterbalance.net/evp-mind/index-frame.html
August 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
“Are we coming to a mutual understanding of our mind/body/soul/spirit definitions?”
Yes!
In skimming through the lecture link above, I think the term “non-reductive” physicalist is too demeaning. Of course, physicalists recognize hierarchies! We are not limited to studying only quarks and leptons as Nancy Murphy states. This is what Dennett describes as Greedy Reductionism. Plain ol’ reductionism is a method of understanding the world at various levels and we are capable of making definitions and speculations when the whole system is not completely known and we are able to study and perform valid science at various levels.
To use the term, “non-reductive” implies that reductionists/physicalists just don’t get the big picture and have lives without meaning. We materialists are apt wax existential, you know.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Gordon,
I have never heard the term non-reductive physicalist before, but I have come to that conclusion myself only recently. I have been wrestling with how far to take physicalism for quite some time. In fact, I was still accepting the term “disembodied spirit” as descriptive of my view on Cliff’s blog within the last month or so, although if pressed I would have clarified by saying that by “disembodied” I mean “not the selfsame body/corpse” and by “spirit” I mean “essence” . Last week I wrote to a dualist preterist on another site concerning the resurrection:
August 11th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Tom, I know how you feel. I used to get pissed when people would say that they were not hyper-Calvinists — as if regular Calvinism = fatalsim, which it doesn’t. Even strict Calvinism recognizes that man has a will and can shake his fist at God all he wants to. I used to also hate it when people would say, “hyper-preterist” for the same reasons. I guess that is also why I can’t stand the term, “Theistic Evolutionist” — it assumes that evolution by itself is atheistic — which is isn’t.
Stephen, I hope you find Murphy’s stuff as useful as I have. I’m sure you’ve already read N.T. Wright on the matter. I’ve got a few books by Murphy that I’m working through. I find that this view resonates also with my preterism.
But don’t forget that reductionists have feelings to…
August 12th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Ok, I’ve given this a couple days, but I still can’t figure out what this means.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Re: Tom’s comment on Nancy Murphy’s use of the word “non-reductive” to qualify the physicalist position. It suggests that physicalism implies reductionism, the logical conclusion of which is nihilism. But, as evidenced by our friends Tom, RBH and Psi, this is a broad - and not always fair - generalization.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Gordon,
I think you’d be really interested in the book I suggested above. The author talks about neuroscience, the human soul, dualism, and all that stuff a great deal, and settles on a stance that draws from emergentinistic philosophy, as opposed to reductionism.
Greg