"What sort of designer is that? What sort of 'fine-tuning' leads to untold human misery? To countless mothers mourning countless children? Did a hateful, malign being make intelligent life in order to torture it? One who relishes cries of pain?
"Maybe. Maybe not. A torrent of pain indisputably swirls through the world—not only the world of humans but the world of sentient animal life as well. Yet, just as undeniably, much that is good graces nature. Many children die, yet many others thrive. Some people languish, but others savor full lives. Does one outweigh the other? If so, which outweighs which? Or are pleasure and pain, good and evil, incommensurable? Are viruses and parasites part of some brilliant, as-yet-unappreciated economy of nature, or do they reflect the bungling of an incompetent, fallible designer?"
Who wrote those words? The first person to identify the author of this quote wins ... well, my praise and kudos!
How do you respond? Do you share the view that malaria is designed, crafted and carefully constructed by a Creator? Or did it slip in by accident? Creation books often explore the beauty and grandeur of the earth and its inhabitants. It is easy to credit a wise and wonderful Creator for Victoria Falls, apples, giraffes, and sequoias. Rarely do Creationists acknowledge the darker side of Creation with its shadowy, sometimes monstrous aspects. What about Malaria?
35 comments:
That was said by Michael Behe in his book, THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
Darwin's Beagle wins! Specifically, the quote can be found on pages 237 and 238. For those who may not know, Michael Behe is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design. I give him credit for the intellectual integrity of exposing this potential defect in his own position.
But I wonder, though, if that is in fact a "potential defect." Or rather, on what assumptions is it a defect? Does Behe's claim, if true, lead to the necessity of altering some theological assumptions?
RBH,
Thank you for your thoughts (btw readers, it was RBH who first introduced me to this Behe quote 19 months ago).
It is a potential defect based upon Behe's own assumptions that,
1) God is good, and
2) All life forms are specifically designed.
By any human standard, one of those two assumptions are at least challenged by Behe's own observations. One could deny the underlying theistic assumption. Or one could contort the meaning of "good" beyond recognition. Or one could maintain theism, maintain the goodness of God, but deny that he specifically designed each species. (This third choice would require some requisite rationale for a God who allows natural processes to take their course.)
Behe (it seems to me) merely leaves the reader without a solution. Do you see it otherwise?
Obviously, I agree that this is an excellent question, and not inherently a "defect". If it were a defect, then ANY presence of evil would be equally a defect.
However, if there's no possible answer, that lack of answer is certainly a defect.
wtanksley,
I believe there is an answer to the dilemma of malaria in the creative order, but it is not to be found within Intelligent Design, or Young Earth Creationism.
[As for my use of "defect", remember I wrote "potential defect", and it was in the context of congratulating Behe's honesty. It is clear enough that Behe would not see it as a fatal flaw to I.D.]
Nope, that's how I see it too, Cliff. And having raised the issue and spent some pathos on the situation of children dying of malaria, Behe fudges mightily to avoid dealing with it. He even introduces the possibility that in some grand cosmic scheme the deaths of an untold number of children of malaria (and presumably other such diseases) may be balanced out by some unknown greater good.
That seems to me to be about as immoral a stance as one can take. Unless one can establish a direct connection between dead children and that unknown greater good, it's mere theological handwaving designed solely to save God from being a cruel and indifferent killer of children.
Many believers would simply put this, like disease and pain in general, under "the-effects-of-sin" umbrella. Such a stance is a call to faith on several fronts. At one level, it shows faith in supernatural evil. We don't know how it works, but such awfulness is probably not natural and certainly has nothing but mal intent. Such a stance throws its hands up in the air at really addressing cures, dealing with and avoiding pain. At another level, it gets us back to Epicurus and the faith that if God does not induce atrocities, he allows them, and since he is all-knowing, there is all-meaning, so there must be a reason for allowing this evil.
RBH and Tom,
Tom> Such a stance throws its hands up in the air at really addressing cures ...
I share your frustration with a Christian eschatology that, sadly, predominates evangelicalism in America and often leads to this kind of defeatism and disengagement. It is contrary to the clear mandate Jesus gave to his followers. As Christians come to recognize that evils like malaria predate the Fall, and predate humanity, I hope for a shift in eschatology, and social consciousness. A more accurate understanding of the history of life on earth necessarily impacts theology.
In the meantime, lets be fair. Many Christians and Christian organizations (even those with the theological viewpoint you lambaste) are striving to deal with malaria and its effects, and AIDS, etc.
RBH> Unless one can establish a direct connection between dead children and that unknown greater good ...
Tom> ... so there must be a reason for allowing this evil.
At OutsideTheBox I am attempting to build an understanding of evil and suffering as necessary components in a cosmic plan to annihilate evil. The only imaginable justification (from my point of view) for the kind of evil represented by malaria is that allowing evil to fully unfold was the best, or only way to bring it to its ultimate end. Whether this theodicy “works” for either of you remains to be seen. But I hope you both know that this theist takes your challenge, and the challenge of Epicurus seriously. And, as a theist, I am seeking a metanarrative that can make sense of malaria.
Cliff, you wrote But I hope you both know that this theist takes your challenge, and the challenge of Epicurus seriously.
Yup, I know that. It's the main reason I stick around here, and even though I think your effort will be futile in the end, I respect the effort you're making. Fighting in a lost cause isn't necessarily a bad thing. :) We've had structure fires where we fought as hard as we could and still lost the house. Didn't stop fighting on that account, though.
cliff > The only imaginable justification (from my point of view) for the kind of evil represented by malaria is that allowing evil to fully unfold was the best, or only way to bring it to its ultimate end.
Just seems another way of flatly asserting that this is the best of all possible worlds - as far as anyone knows.
Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."
Isaac,
Just seems another way of flatly asserting that this is the best of all possible worlds - as far as anyone knows.
Yeah, maybe. But if this world is, in reality, a means to an end, then maybe that world which comes in the wake of this one will be far better.
cliff > But if this world is, in reality, a means to an end, then maybe that world which comes in the wake of this one will be far better.
Isn't that too just another way of flatly asserting that this is the best of all possible worlds - whatever suffering exists in this world is in some unknowable way needed to give some unknown greater good in some unknown future?
Leading to the familiar mockery - pie in the sky when you die.
cliff > The only imaginable justification (from my point of view) for the kind of evil represented by malaria...
Does trying to justify evil sound to you like "a good thing"?
Cliff, again I sympathize with your effort, though I do not see it succeeding with a unitary God. I suspect the only real way out is some sort of (at least) duality -- perhaps the Marcionist heresy is still in play.
Just to make things a bit more interesting:
Sickle-cell disease, usually presenting in childhood, occurs more commonly in people (or their descendants) from parts of tropical and sub-tropical regions where malaria is or was common. One-third of all aboriginal inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait). Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.(From Wikipedia)
So, who designed Sickle-cell anemia?
Rich G. > So, who designed Sickle-cell anemia?Do you understand that sickle-cell anemia is a bad thing?
"In the United States it is estimated that over 70,000 people have sickle cell disease. ... The average life expectancy in America has improved. It is now in the mid 40 years of age range."Perhaps you mean "So, who designed sickle-cell trait?"
RBH,
I suspect the only real way out is some sort of (at least) duality -- perhaps the Marcionist heresy is still in play.
I have certainly been accused of dualism. I find Zoroastrianism ... well ... interesting. But I am not a dualist, and I flatly reject the Marcion and Gnostic brands of dualism. However, I have suggested that evil posed a more serious problem for God than most Christians think. That is, standard Christian theology usually holds that God could deal evil a fatal blow with simplicity and finality any time he chose to. I question this. The evils we are discussing, evils so pervasive in this creation, strongly suggest to me that God is dealing with evil in the best, or only way he can, and that its annihilation is a process unfolding. Does this make me a dualist?
Isaac:
Do you understand that sickle-cell anemia is a bad thing?Yes, it is not a good thing for the individual sufferer, but it is not totally evil, there is arguably some offsetting benefit. My point is that I do not believe we are able to fully understand the overall cost/benefit of the various problems inherent in PoE.
Rich and Isaac,
Rich comments, My point is that I do not believe we are able to fully understand the overall cost/benefit of the various problems inherent in PoE.And this, I would contend, is because the development of life forms has not been a categorical "this is evil / this is good" process, but a random one, with morally ambiguous results.
Cliff wrote
That is, standard Christian theology usually holds that God could deal evil a fatal blow with simplicity and finality any time he chose to.Which is why a great deal of apologetics consists in finding excuses for why God doesn't do that. Hence we hear a whole lot about God's "mysterious ways" and stuff about some higher good being served that we don't/can/t comprehend. None of which, of course, explains or even excuses anything; they merely avoid the problem.
Cliff wrote
The evils we are discussing, evils so pervasive in this creation, strongly suggest to me that God is dealing with evil in the best, or only way he can, and that its annihilation is a process unfolding. Does this make me a dualist?I guess it depends on how one accounts for the existence of evil.
RBH,
I guess it depends on how one accounts for the existence of evil.
On the one hand, since I propose that evil appeared or arose in God's presence prior to, and thus outside of this present cosmos, I do not feel compelled to answer the question of how it came to be. We can only deal with phenomena as the exist in our reality. But I do have thoughts about the origination of evil, thoughts that align with the Biblical account of Lucifer's rebellion. I presume that God chose to create beings with genuine moral self-determination. His purpose for doing so, and whether or not he fore-knew the consequences remain unanswerable questions for me.
Rich G. > it is not totally evil, there is arguably some offsetting benefitThe fact that sickle-cell anemia is in some senses a lesser-evil than Malaria does not make it a good, just a lesser-evil.
Rich G. > My point is that I do not believe we are able to fully understand the overall cost/benefit of the various problems inherent in PoE.Do you fully understand how God could be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent?
cliff > ... since I propose that evil appeared or arose in God's presence prior to, and thus outside of this present cosmos, I do not feel compelled to answer the question of how it came to be.
What's asserted without reason can be dismissed without reason, but why make a mystery where none seems to exist?
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
Isaac,
You may recall that I commented on Isaiah 45:7 about midway throuh this post. Suffice it to say that I do not believe that God "created evil", that the KJV of Isaiah 45:7 is a poor and misleading translation, and that when quoted to suggest God's sovereign intent in creating evil, it is lifted out of context.
"Here, in unmistakable terms, there is only one God - a huge, cosmic deity who bestrides the whole universe:
...
I am the LORD, and there is no other; there are no gods but Me.
I surround you, yet you do not know Me.
But let everyone know, from where the sun rises
to where it grows dark, that there is none but Me.
I am the LORD and no other exists - the maker of light and creator of darkness,
the bringer of weal and creator of woe - I, the LORD, make all these."
p560 How to Read the Bible, James L. Kugel
'... both "the maker of good and the creator of ill" (Isa. 45:7), and such a description must, alas, have some resonance for our own times.'
p70 How to Read the Bible, James L. Kugel
Would you have me believe someone who was Professor of Hebrew at Harvard for 20 years - a specialist in the Hebrew Bible and its interpretations - doesn't understand what those "unmistakable terms" mean?
Isaac,
Keep searching. He's not the only Hebrew Scholar. There is never an absolutely right way to translate words from one language to another. Ask any linguist. Word meanings overlap.
Then again "creator of woe" is something quite different from "creator of evil". We've been discussing the ultimate cause of evil, not the ultimate cause of woe.
The passage is about certain judgments (woes, if you will) God was about to bring upon the nation of Israel.
Isaac:
Do you fully understand how God could be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent? No.
But you seem to be demanding that of us.
cliff > Keep searching. He's not the only Hebrew Scholar.
Why haven't you tried to show that somethings wrong with his translation or interpretation?
"I make peace and create calamity"
New King James Bible
"I bring prosperity and create disaster"
New International Bible
"I send good times and bad times"
New Living Bible
"I make well-being and create woe"
The Catholic Study Bible
"I make weal and create woe"
NRSV Bible & The Jewish Study Bible
"God is in control of all the twists and turns of history, whether good or bad from a human standpoint."
p970 NRSV Harper Collins Study Bible 2006
"Although Yahweh is said to be the author of both good and evil, evil is no giant swaggering ruthlessly through the world; somehow it accomplishes God's will for Israel"
p337 The New Jerome Bible Commentary 1990
"Create woe: God permits evil for the sake of a greater good."
p980 The Catholic Study Bible 2006
cliff > Then again "creator of woe" is something quite different from "creator of evil".
'This v. is quoted at the beginning of the morning service ... where the word woe (or "evil") is replaced with the euphemism, "everything".'
p875 The Jewish Study Bible
cliff > We've been discussing the ultimate cause of evil, not the ultimate cause of woe.
You were asked for 'a commonly agreed-upon definition of the term "Evil"' and gave a broad answer of natural harms, and moral evil March 29, 2009 8:10 PM.
cliff > The passage is about certain judgments (woes, if you will) God was about to bring upon the nation of Israel.
For sake of argument let's accept that at face value, now how do you say that changes the meaning of
"the maker of light and creator of darkness,
the bringer of weal and creator of woe - I, the LORD, make all these."
Isaac,
I'm sorry, but I see little value in the kind of word mincing and pushing people into corners which is a mainstay of your rhetorical approach.
Here is my position. I will not argue it or defend it further:
1) I do not believe that God created evil.
2) I do not interpret Isaiah 45:7 or any other verse as teaching that God is the originator of evil (cf. James 1:13).
3) The Old Testament clearly portrays God as sending judgments of various kinds. Judgments are never pleasant. But they are not evil, as I would define evil.
4) When discussing the "Problem of evil", I use the broadest definition of evil to accommodate the skeptics' argument.
5) This may, at times, result in a technical overlap between the judgments of God as understood by O.T. authors and my broad definition of "evil" for the sake of PoE discussions.
6) This does not equate to an admission that God creates or authors or is the source of evil.
There. I'm sure you can find several word traps to corner me with. But I am not interested in discussing it anymore. Those are my beliefs.
cliff > 2) I do not interpret Isaiah 45:7 or any other verse as teaching that God is the originator of evil
Which might be fine if you were willing to say how you manage to interpret Isaiah 45:7 in some other way.
Which might be fine if when you implied there was something wrong with other people's scholarship you were willing to show where in your opinion they had gone wrong.
As it is, you don't seem to interpret Isaiah 45:7 at all - you seem to close your eyes to Isaiah 45:7
Isaac,
I'm not going to review our whole discussion for you,. If you are genuinely interested in my view, I clearly told you how I understand Isaiah 45:7 about five comments back.
I take no issue with most of the versions you quoted. I do not believe "I create evil" is a good translation of the Hebrew.
cliff > I clearly told you
And I asked you how the context you claim "The passage is about certain judgments (woes, if you will) God was about to bring upon the nation of Israel" changes the meaning?
"the maker of light and creator of darkness,
the bringer of weal and creator of woe - I, the LORD, make all these."
cliff > I do not believe "I create evil" is a good translation of the Hebrew.
Why don't you say what you believe is a good translation of the Hebrew for that verse?
Why don't you say what you want "evil" to mean in this discussion?
(I don't care what meaning you use. I care that you make clear what meaning you are using and make clear when you switch to a different meaning.)
The plasmodium falciparum genome contains 23 megabases, about five and a half megabytes of information.
You can explore and download the sequence (of some particular strains) at the NCBI website.
If we accept that this amount of information could not just pop into existence by accident, we can rule out a simple accidental process of creation, such as that sin allowed it to come into being and God merely chose not the prevent this. Clearly this is the work of an intelligent designer.
The beautifully complex lifecycle, involving multiple stages of infection, also argues for intelligent design, since any one stage on its own would be ineffective. Much as the human eye must have been designed, since it is made up of parts that are useless on their own, so must malaria have been.
Paul,
Welcome to OutsideTheBox.
Marlaria, it seems to me, poses a serious theological problem for Intelligent Design and/or Special Creationism. Some say Malaria is a result of the Fall. But come on! 3,000 people, mostly children, in the subtropical belts die every day ... and that is supposed to be because of Adam's sin?
To me, the mammalian eyeball itself (despite Michael Behe) argues against intelligent design, with its critical design flaw of backwards wiring. Design? maybe. Intlligent? not very. So I do not presume, as you do, that extreme complexity of multiple interacting components necessitates special design. The mechanisms of DNA provide for such complexity (see Michael Gene, Michael Denton, and others).
No, as I see it, all of the development of life has been subject to random occurrences, some with positive effects, others with negative. In the end, despite death and decay and many deleterious evolutionary effects, life wins! In a nutshell (there is much more to it, of course!) that is the story line in which we now find ourselves. Meanwhile, "let the wheat and weeds grow together until harvest."
Post a Comment