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.
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:
Plantinga said: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.