PoE vs. Evolution - creationist's dilemma

[Meow Mix]

I've posted a bit about this before in the Creation vs. Evolution section, but I wanted to re-open the subject since bringing the debate to Alvin Plantinga's doorstep. I'll clip a lot of the "fluff" from my opening argument to him (as some of it regards an unrelated debate we were previously working on, anyhow) but I will post Plantinga's response in full.

My opening argument was essentially an attempt at forcing a certain type of person into a dilemma -- those who are familiar with my penchant for the Problem of Evil and Euthyphro's Dilemma probably know I love that sort of argument. Anyway, this argument is geared towards a creationist who doubts the theory of common descent and who also agrees with a free will defense as a response to the Problem of Evil.

The argument (greatly reduced in verbiage, but you can read the original here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/103318-design-torture.html#post2144191) goes somewhat thusly:

1) Plasmodium falciparum is a complex protozoan that causes severe human misery
2) Since it is what creationists might call "irreducibly complex," they would be disinclined to say that it evolved
3) If it didn't evolve, then God must have created it
4) But Plasmodium is a torture device and causes great suffering, and this suffering isn't explainable by any free will defense since its existence has nothing to do with man's free will

Thus the target is in the unattractive position of having to choose whether Plasmodium evolved (and therefore admit that "irreducibly complex" systems can evolve) or that God created a torture device and is thus malevolent (and therefore invoke the logical Problem of Evil).

Plantinga responded:

That's a problem, all right. I very much doubt that macroevolution can occur unguided; and even if it could, God would still be the ultimate source of the evil in question, if the evil i question can't be ascribed to the free actions of some creature(s).

But maybe it can C. S Lewis suggests that fallen angels, or at any rate powerful nonhuman free creatures have been permitted to have a serious hand in the evolution of life on our planet. This seems to me a pretty good suggestion. You might ask why God would permit these free creatures to create the havoc they do: the answer would be the same as with respect to the question why God permits human beings to do some of the appalling things they do.
Cheers,
--Alvin Plantinga

This is a clever move to me, and is part of why I have the utmost respect for Plantinga. In one fell swoop he whisked the theist right between the horns of the dilemma to safety on two fronts: one, by removing the danger of the Problem of Evil by putting it within the realm of his free will defense (by asserting that this particular suffering is caused by powerful non-human, non-God free will) and simultaneously removing the danger of having to admit common descent (by asserting these non-human free agents intelligently designed the torture device).

However, this raises a new dilemma; which is why I revived this topic to share with you. Why, then, do we have an immune system that Plasmodium has to dodge in the first place?

A) If we have an immune system to fight "natural" disease and powerful non-human free agents (PNFA's) are only guilty of engineering certain ones like Plasmodium then we just have a microcosm of the original dilemma: whence came those diseases; were they created by God (and therefore we're back to the PoE) or did they evolve (and therefore we're back to so-called "macroevolution.") Furthermore, Plantinga agrees that if the diseases are natural, then "God would still be the ultimate source of the evil in question..."

B) If all diseases are hand-waved away by asserting that they're all the result of actions by PNFA's, then whence comes the immune system? Here, too, we have a dilemma: either the immune system evolved (and therefore we're back to so-called "macroevolution") or God created it. But asserting that God created it contradicts the free will defense, since the free will defense asserts that God doesn't prevent evil because that would interfere with free will. If God created the immune system to hamper the PNFA's plans then God is doing precisely what the Epicurean Problem of Evil supporter says God should be doing: preventing evil.

But if so, God isn't doing enough. Why? Why would God only stop a little bit of evil caused by PNFA's but not more, and how is this consistent at all with the entire argument that God doesn't interfere with evil because interfering would somehow diminish free will?

There is a third option, possibly:

C) Other PNFA's who want to help us rather than harm us created the immune system. This, I think, throws everything out of perspective though. Just how much of creation can we attribute to God if all these PNFA's are messing around with everything, especially something so core to what we are and how we exist physically as our immune systems?

Also, why are these "good" PNFA's so bad at their job? I, a mere mortal, can tell you exactly how to stop malaria given the resources of some powerful being. (After all, malaria cycles through a predictable series of hooks, which means that a good PNFA could tweak the immune system to pre-emptively strike it down).

Consider something like earthquakes. They aren't caused by human free will, that's for sure (though some loudmouths believe they're retribution for human free will actions, that's entirely different). Are those caused by PNFA's too? But if so, it goes back to my original question of where God's creation ends and PNFA creation begins. For PNFA's to create earthquakes they'd have to have had a huge hand in the creation of the very planet since earthquakes are caused by huge superstructures (i.e., tectonic plates). What sort of creator lets a bunch of goons in to muck things up while he's in the middle of creating something? How much sense does that make?

---------------------------------

In any case, due to these reasons, I don't think Plantinga's/C.S. Lewis's positions are tenable.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Hey MM,

You're not going to get anywhere with this. You've already seen that when pressured Platinga invented another "magical" being to maintain a grasp of his/her beliefs.

You've exposed the contradictions (read inanity) of the argument and i'm willing to put money on the fact that he/she will do one of three things:

1. Invent another "magical" answer
2. Invoke the "no one can understand gods plan" card
3. Stop responding altogether.

Number 1 may be used a couple of times before resorting to number 2 or 3 and each defense will become more desperate and therefore more ridiculous.

Either way he/she cannot reconcile your arguments with his/her belief.

-Q

 

[Copernicus]

I do not see how Plantinga gets theists off the hook with this kind of ploy. What can he possibly mean by "have been permitted to have a serious hand"? Who gave them permission, and who knew what they would be up to, having been given that "free hand"? Just because God does not directly create the torture device, that does not mean that he lacked control over its creation or responsibility for its use, especially in light of his alleged omniscience. Depraved indifference is doing nothing to prevent evil that one has the power to prevent. This is even worse, since knowledgeably granting permission was itself part of the chain of responsibility.

 

[drsatish]

Its NOT PoE...it is PoV....Point of View!

POV of Human...
or
POV of Plasmodium, for whom Immune System is PoE!

"If" "God" "Created" "Everything",
(and in his image)
will he/she/plasmodium
be PARTIAL to ANOTHER CHILD?

The Trick is to LET GO of All Concepts Circulating in the Brain.....
&
u will know.

Satish

 

[Meow Mix]

Hey MM,

You're not going to get anywhere with this. You've already seen that when pressured Platinga invented another "magical" being to maintain a grasp of his/her beliefs.

You've exposed the contradictions (read inanity) of the argument and i'm willing to put money on the fact that he/she will do one of three things:

1. Invent another "magical" answer
2. Invoke the "no one can understand gods plan" card
3. Stop responding altogether.

Number 1 may be used a couple of times before resorting to number 2 or 3 and each defense will become more desperate and therefore more ridiculous.

Either way he/she cannot reconcile your arguments with his/her belief.

-Q

This is not my experience so far with debating Plantinga. For instance in our debate on his ontological argument he admitted that it wasn't "any good" and "too weak," admitting that it couldn't stand against the points.

Also his move to PNFA's is very clever rather than magical because the nuances of the PoE are such that it can be answered if there is the mere logical possibility of God being nonculpable for evil -- Plantinga can invent anything he wishes legitimately in this specific argument because all he has to do is show that it's logically possible for evil to exist alongside a benevolent God, not that it's plausible for that to be the case. He was well within the scope of a good debater and often is. Just wanted to clarify that aspect.

However, I agree that he will have a tough time wriggling out of this conundrum.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Its NOT PoE...it is PoV....Point of View!

PoE=Problem of Evil

Get a grip Doc.

 

[Meow Mix]

I do not see how Plantinga gets theists off the hook with this kind of ploy. What can he possibly mean by "have been permitted to have a serious hand"? Who gave them permission, and who knew what they would be up to, having been given that "free hand"? Just because God does not directly create the torture device, that does not mean that he lacked control over its creation or responsibility for its use, especially in light of his alleged omniscience. Depraved indifference is doing nothing to prevent evil that one has the power to prevent. This is even worse, since knowledgeably granting permission was itself part of the chain of responsibility.

However, what you might be missing is that Plantinga is the author of the free will defense against the Problem of Evil known as "transworld depravity," wherein it's argued that an omnimax God isn't capable of creating the best possible world (what he calls Leibniz's mistake). Why? Because it's logically possible that given that one of God's goals is to provide free agency to His creatures that in every possible world at least one person makes a wrong moral choice (i.e., is "transworld depraved"): thus it's logically impossible for even an omnipotent God to create a world with free will but without suffering.

One of Plantinga's premises of course is that God wanted His creatures to have "significant freedom," which he defines as being able to make moral choices. Thus he is well within the scope of his original TD defense in suggesting that some non-human creatures may logically exist (which is true) which God also allows free will. His objection is valid, but it just raises more questions and problems.

Aside from that, transworld depravity is (I argue) wrong anyway but you have to understand that right now I'm debating him not with the aim to critique TD (so in our discussion we're assuming TD is true) but to demonstrate that even if it is true that it still doesn't solve the PoE.

 

[bobhikes]

Hey MM,

You're not going to get anywhere with this. You've already seen that when pressured Platinga invented another "magical" being to maintain a grasp of his/her beliefs.

You've exposed the contradictions (read inanity) of the argument and i'm willing to put money on the fact that he/she will do one of three things:

1. Invent another "magical" answer
2. Invoke the "no one can understand gods plan" card
3. Stop responding altogether.

Number 1 may be used a couple of times before resorting to number 2 or 3 and each defense will become more desperate and therefore more ridiculous.

Either way he/she cannot reconcile your arguments with his/her belief.

-Q

I agree, and Like to add I don't understand why most people don't get this. They believe that somehow their reason will overcome years of faith.

#2 is actually written in almost every religious text. Since its there I don't understand why anyone that is religious even pretends to try and understand.

 

[tarasan]

I've posted a bit about this before in the Creation vs. Evolution section, but I wanted to re-open the subject since bringing the debate to Alvin Plantinga's doorstep. I'll clip a lot of the "fluff" from my opening argument to him (as some of it regards an unrelated debate we were previously working on, anyhow) but I will post Plantinga's response in full.

My opening argument was essentially an attempt at forcing a certain type of person into a dilemma -- those who are familiar with my penchant for the Problem of Evil and Euthyphro's Dilemma probably know I love that sort of argument. Anyway, this argument is geared towards a creationist who doubts the theory of common descent and who also agrees with a free will defense as a response to the Problem of Evil.

The argument (greatly reduced in verbiage, but you can read the original here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/103318-design-torture.html#post2144191) goes somewhat thusly:

1) Plasmodium falciparum is a complex protozoan that causes severe human misery
2) Since it is what creationists might call "irreducibly complex," they would be disinclined to say that it evolved
3) If it didn't evolve, then God must have created it
4) But Plasmodium is a torture device and causes great suffering, and this suffering isn't explainable by any free will defense since its existence has nothing to do with man's free will

Thus the target is in the unattractive position of having to choose whether Plasmodium evolved (and therefore admit that "irreducibly complex" systems can evolve) or that God created a torture device and is thus malevolent (and therefore invoke the logical Problem of Evil).

Plantinga responded:


This is a clever move to me, and is part of why I have the utmost respect for Plantinga. In one fell swoop he whisked the theist right between the horns of the dilemma to safety on two fronts: one, by removing the danger of the Problem of Evil by putting it within the realm of his free will defense (by asserting that this particular suffering is caused by powerful non-human, non-God free will) and simultaneously removing the danger of having to admit common descent (by asserting these non-human free agents intelligently designed the torture device).

However, this raises a new dilemma; which is why I revived this topic to share with you. Why, then, do we have an immune system that Plasmodium has to dodge in the first place?

A) If we have an immune system to fight "natural" disease and powerful non-human free agents (PNFA's) are only guilty of engineering certain ones like Plasmodium then we just have a microcosm of the original dilemma: whence came those diseases; were they created by God (and therefore we're back to the PoE) or did they evolve (and therefore we're back to so-called "macroevolution.") Furthermore, Plantinga agrees that if the diseases are natural, then "God would still be the ultimate source of the evil in question..."

B) If all diseases are hand-waved away by asserting that they're all the result of actions by PNFA's, then whence comes the immune system? Here, too, we have a dilemma: either the immune system evolved (and therefore we're back to so-called "macroevolution") or God created it. But asserting that God created it contradicts the free will defense, since the free will defense asserts that God doesn't prevent evil because that would interfere with free will. If God created the immune system to hamper the PNFA's plans then God is doing precisely what the Epicurean Problem of Evil supporter says God should be doing: preventing evil.

But if so, God isn't doing enough. Why? Why would God only stop a little bit of evil caused by PNFA's but not more, and how is this consistent at all with the entire argument that God doesn't interfere with evil because interfering would somehow diminish free will?

There is a third option, possibly:

C) Other PNFA's who want to help us rather than harm us created the immune system. This, I think, throws everything out of perspective though. Just how much of creation can we attribute to God if all these PNFA's are messing around with everything, especially something so core to what we are and how we exist physically as our immune systems?

Also, why are these "good" PNFA's so bad at their job? I, a mere mortal, can tell you exactly how to stop malaria given the resources of some powerful being. (After all, malaria cycles through a predictable series of hooks, which means that a good PNFA could tweak the immune system to pre-emptively strike it down).

Consider something like earthquakes. They aren't caused by human free will, that's for sure (though some loudmouths believe they're retribution for human free will actions, that's entirely different). Are those caused by PNFA's too? But if so, it goes back to my original question of where God's creation ends and PNFA creation begins. For PNFA's to create earthquakes they'd have to have had a huge hand in the creation of the very planet since earthquakes are caused by huge superstructures (i.e., tectonic plates). What sort of creator lets a bunch of goons in to muck things up while he's in the middle of creating something? How much sense does that make?

---------------------------------

In any case, due to these reasons, I don't think Plantinga's/C.S. Lewis's positions are tenable.

it really depends on how much hand you believe that God had in evolution, if he merely created us with the ability to evolve then then he really isnt responsible for the immune system that developed.

but if that isnt the case (c) does just fine Meow, remeber the free will defence just has to be possible to succeed in defending thiests from POE so these explanations would have to be logically impossible for them to fail.

 

[Copernicus]

Also his move to PNFA's is very clever rather than magical because the nuances of the PoE are such that it can be answered if there is the mere logical possibility of God being nonculpable for evil -- Plantinga can invent anything he wishes legitimately in this specific argument because all he has to do is show that it's logically possible for evil to exist alongside a benevolent God, not that it's plausible for that to be the case. He was well within the scope of a good debater and often is. Just wanted to clarify that aspect.

I guess it boils down to how you score a debate. If one believes that all the debater has to do is show a logical possibility, then it becomes an exercise in sophistry. One can make an argument that many things are logically possible. In the end, plausibility ought to be the goal, not possibility. If it is not, then a debate over the existence of Russell's orbiting teapot becomes interesting. The person with the most creative scenario wins.

 

[tarasan]

I guess it boils down to how you score a debate. If one believes that all the debater has to do is show a logical possibility, then it becomes an exercise in sophistry. One can make an argument that many things are logically possible. In the end, plausibility ought to be the goal, not possibility. If it is not, then a debate over the existence of Russell's orbiting teapot becomes interesting. The person with the most creative scenario wins.

Plantinga grants that a theodicy is better than a defense, but i assume he prefers to play it cagey. He is looking to justify religion why would he not do it in the easiest way?

 

[Copernicus]

However, what you might be missing is that Plantinga is the author of the free will defense against the Problem of Evil known as "transworld depravity," wherein it's argued that an omnimax God isn't capable of creating the best possible world (what he calls Leibniz's mistake). Why? Because it's logically possible that given that one of God's goals is to provide free agency to His creatures that in every possible world at least one person makes a wrong moral choice (i.e., is "transworld depraved"): thus it's logically impossible for even an omnipotent God to create a world with free will but without suffering.

One of Plantinga's premises of course is that God wanted His creatures to have "significant freedom," which he defines as being able to make moral choices. Thus he is well within the scope of his original TD defense in suggesting that some non-human creatures may logically exist (which is true) which God also allows free will. His objection is valid, but it just raises more questions and problems.

Aside from that, transworld depravity is (I argue) wrong anyway but you have to understand that right now I'm debating him not with the aim to critique TD (so in our discussion we're assuming TD is true) but to demonstrate that even if it is true that it still doesn't solve the PoE.

You are right that I didn't know about the TD context of the debate. I suppose that one could ask what free will means in the context of an "every possible world" scenario. After all, the many-worlds conjecture in quantum theory is supposed to restore determinism, isn't it? How is there free will if every event entails the existence of its antithesis? Also, one could question whether God's desire to create beings with moral choices is consistent with omnibenevolence, since all he ends up with is a balance between moral good and moral evil. If God is incapable of making a difference, then his omnibenevolence would be of no significance at all and his motive for creating anything would seem to be another one of those problems that gets raised by the argument.

 

[drsatish]

PoE=Problem of Evil

Get a grip Doc.

Get a grip Tumble!
That is Exactly what I said.

Problem of Evil DEPENDS ENTIRELY on Point of View!

As I said before, for the Plasmodium it is the Immune system of the Human Body that is trying to neutralize what it wants/ get in the way / ...its Humble Need to Eat & Live!
The Th1 Immune Response to Plasmodium falciparum Circumsporozoite Protein Is Boosted by Adenovirus Vectors 35 and 26 with a Homologous Insert -- Radosevic et al. 17 (11): 1687 -- Clinical and Vaccine Immunology

For the Plasmodium, All those lovely Liver Cells & RBCs are MANNA from Heaven..! A Land of Plenty....& Plenty!

"Upon infection via a bite from an infected Anopheles mosquito, sporozoites devastate the human body by first infecting the liver. While in the liver, sporozoites undergo asexual development and merozoites are released into the blood stream. The trophozoites further develop and reproduce by invading red blood cells."
Plasmodium falciparum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EVIL...DOES NOT EXIST...AS SUCH!

...Only as a Relative Concept.
...depends on Point of View!

For eg:
One Country calls Another : The Evil Empire!

Can you tell me which country is Truly, Always, Permanently EVIL?

Satish

 

[Meow Mix]

it really depends on how much hand you believe that God had in evolution, if he merely created us with the ability to evolve then then he really isnt responsible for the immune system that developed.

but if that isnt the case (c) does just fine Meow, remeber the free will defence just has to be possible to succeed in defending thiests from POE so these explanations would have to be logically impossible for them to fail.

Indeed, however it's a hollow defense as it isn't the sort of theism that most theists ascribe to; as it turns out that God's hand in creation turns out to be precious little other than sustaining it and most of the creation if (c) is true is attributed to PNFA's because of all the existential chains that lead to the suffering they're responsible for.

For instance, in order for earthquakes to harm, PNFA's would have had to created the way Earth is, not God, because earthquakes are only possible qua the entirety of the state of affairs that is the structure of planet Earth. Those in turn rest on the contingent physics which makes that possible.

It also entails another mini-dilemma: why on earth would we have immune systems to stop diseases but not, say, a natural anti-burning device... or a natural antifreeze as some organisms have? It just doesn't make a whole lot of cogent sense.

So, indeed, the logical argument may be answered (I'm not even sure of that, I'm looking into whether there are contradictions at the moment) but it can only be answered at extreme cost to the theist. It's still a powerfully effective argument that forces theists to choose between positions that they probably don't believe, which was the goal anyway.

As for the logical PoE, even if it's supposed this counter solves it, remember that it only does so in the context of TD being assumed true. If TD is not true, then the PoE still has full logical force. Of course, I can demonstrate that TD is not true, so I can still use the PoE in discussions where we're not for the sake of argument assuming TD's truth.

 

[Meow Mix]

Plantinga grants that a theodicy is better than a defense, but i assume he prefers to play it cagey. He is looking to justify religion why would he not do it in the easiest way?

The other way around -- he argues a defense is better than a theodicy. Theodicies admit evil exists and that God knowingly causes or allows it (and acknowledges there is a contradiction with evil existing and an omnibenevolent being existing) but makes excuses for it by saying it's really ultimately good or something (and thus nearly 100% of theodicies amount to special pleading fallacy). A defense against the PoE denies that there's any contradiction between an omnibenevolent/omnipotent/omniscient creator and the existence of suffering, thereby sidestepping the whole logical force of the argument.

 

[Meow Mix]

I guess it boils down to how you score a debate. If one believes that all the debater has to do is show a logical possibility, then it becomes an exercise in sophistry. One can make an argument that many things are logically possible. In the end, plausibility ought to be the goal, not possibility. If it is not, then a debate over the existence of Russell's orbiting teapot becomes interesting. The person with the most creative scenario wins.

Most of the time you would be right -- except in the case when someone is asserting there is a logical impossibility. Then the defender must only show that there is logical possibility, and stop at that. A defender against the claim that it's impossible to have a square be a circle at the same time and in the same respect must only show that it's logically possible, he/she needn't actually demonstrate that one exists because that isn't the claim in question -- for instance. Of if someone claimed it was logically impossible for a cow to jump over the moon, the defender need only point out that it entails no contradiction and use this or that argument to show that it's within the realm of possibility (though obviously not of plausibility) to answer the argument in full since it was only ever about logical possibilities (not plausibility) in the first place.

In the PoE's case, the skeptic is the one making the assertion (that there is a logical impossibility) and so carries the onus of proof. Once made, the theist need only to demonstrate that there's not a logical impossibility by simply demonstrating any logical possibility, which fully refutes the skeptic's claim that it's impossible.

 

[Copernicus]

In the PoE's case, the skeptic is the one making the assertion (that there is a logical impossibility) and so carries the onus of proof. Once made, the theist need only to demonstrate that there's not a logical impossibility by simply demonstrating any logical possibility, which fully refutes the skeptic's claim that it's impossible.

I agree with you that some skeptics take that stance, but logic-choppers have a field day with those kinds of skeptics. If we do not end up in a quagmire of terminological disputes over what "free will" and "benevolence" actually mean, the ultimate show-stopper is the ineffability defense. God can always have a motive that we cannot know about. My skepticism is usually grounded in implausibility rather than impossibility. After all, the existence of that orbiting teapot would never be a logical impossibility, and I would never claim that it were.

 

[Meow Mix]

I agree with you that some skeptics take that stance, but logic-choppers have a field day with those kinds of skeptics. If we do not end up in a quagmire of terminological disputes over what "free will" and "benevolence" actually mean, the ultimate show-stopper is the ineffability defense. God can always have a motive that we cannot know about. My skepticism is usually grounded in implausibility rather than impossibility. After all, the existence of that orbiting teapot would never be a logical impossibility, and I would never claim that it were.

Actually you can still make a logical argument against the ineffability claim: that it is non-cognitive and furthermore that it's special pleading fallacy. Since fallacies aren't regarded as proper responses then the theist (if they make such an argument) still hasn't properly responded to your objection and so still loses the debate unless they come up with something non-fallacious.

 

[Copernicus]

Actually you can still make a logical argument against the ineffability claim: that it is non-cognitive and furthermore that it's special pleading fallacy. Since fallacies aren't regarded as proper responses then the theist (if they make such an argument) still hasn't properly responded to your objection and so still loses the debate unless they come up with something non-fallacious.

Absolutely right. I usually counter it with the non-cognitive response, but special pleading is a bit easier to argue. People who claim that God's reasoning is ineffable have usually already committed themselves to his "effability" in all aspects except the one that provoked the defense. If you don't stop them, believers will talk for hours about those aspects of God that they understand perfectly well.

You are lucky to get a chance to match wits with the real Plantinga, though. Far better than matching wits with the likes of us.

 

[Meow Mix]

Absolutely right. I usually counter it with the non-cognitive response, but special pleading is a bit easier to argue. People who claim that God's reasoning is ineffable have usually already committed themselves to his "effability" in all aspects except the one that provoked the defense. If you don't stop them, believers will talk for hours about those aspects of God that they understand perfectly well.

You are lucky to get a chance to match wits with the real Plantinga, though. Far better than matching wits with the likes of us.

I don't want him to get a storm of emails on my account but he's quite receptive to the public from what I've experienced. I'm also engaged in a debate with Robert Stern on transcendental arguments and Stroud's weakening substitution.

Incidentally, we may end up getting tied in a three-way conversation between Plantinga, Stern and myself because we're approaching the aseity/sovereignty intuition (which my transcendental argument attempts to refute) and Plantinga is arguably one of the best contemporary thinkers on the issue. (Incidentally, Plantinga and I are in agreement on it: it would be Stern that I'm trying to convince!)