The Problem of Evil Solved

Hey, if Daniel Dennett can write a book called Consciousness Explained (though it does nothing of the sort) why can't I pretend to have solved the problem of evil? The intent of this post is not, of course, to actually solve the problem once and for all, but to demonstrate that the argument is less weighty than its proponents might think.

The standard formulation of the argument goes something like this: if God is good and all-powerful then evil should not exist. If evil exists, then either God does not exist or God is not like the traditional Judaeo-Christian view of him (i.e. either not all good or not omnipotent). It is usually taken as a given that evil does in fact exist and that this is a problem for the Christian God.

I admit that the problem is difficult from both an intellectual and an emotional viewpoint. Examples of evil (or suffering, as some philosophers might prefer) are easy to call to mind. The atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps, the victims of the tsunami of 2004, or the children from around the world who are abused each day are only a few of the examples one can provide. How could a loving, good, all-powerful God allow such things? It is a difficult question, but I think a few considerations significantly soften the force of the argument.

In the Christian worldview, God created the universe and then life to occupy it. Because God desired a rational companion he created humans. He created them in his image, and he created them male and female. Humans are unique among the animals, being the only ones able to think abstractly, use language, and act rationally. By granting humans agency, or free will, God was able to have a relationship with them. Now, God, or humans, can have relationships with dogs, cats, pigs, or whatever. Clearly, though, the relationship is very different than one that is between two agents. That is, between two beings able to choose among different actions, a relationship acquires meaning. The reason why your relationship with your mother, spouse, or brother is meaningful is because both parties have a choice in the matter. Having someone love you is meaningful only if they have the option to not love you. God then, was taking a risk when he created human agents. Apparently he thought it worth the risk to have the possibility of meaningful, reciprocal relationships. So then, the possibility of love entails the possibility of hate. The possibility of performing acts of love and grace towards others entails the possibility of performing acts of hatred.

One might respond that, yes, in general God has reasons for allowing free will, but what about those concentration camps, did God really have to allow that? This seems reasonable at first glance, but consider: where exactly should God draw that line? When someone wants to kill 100 people, should God step in and stop him? What about 10 people? How about just one? Killing one person is evil, just as killing a thousand is. A husband striking his wife is also evil. A child who is bullied at school can be damaged physically and emotionally. Should God step in each time a bully is about to act? How about the next time you are about to lie to your spouse about something? Or spend an extra hundred dollars on a new TV while children starve to death in another country? I suggest that if we head down this path, soon we will find ourselves unable to hate, dislike, steal, lie, or in short, do anything short of perfect acts. We would find ourselves automatons, blindly, unthinkingly acting “good.” But these acts would be meaningless, as we would not have any other choice. This is exactly what God did not want.

In the movie, The Truman Show, Jim Carrey plays a character named Truman who has unwittingly become the star of a TV show. The TV show simply follows his every day life, but Truman has no idea he is being filmed. He also has no idea that his entire life, from his birth up to his present day, has been staged. Everyone he thinks he knows are just actors. The town he lives in has been created solely for the purpose of the show. Truman's life is very "nice." He has friends, a wife, a steady job. The problem? Since his whole life is an artificial construct Truman eventually begins to suspect something is up; something doesn’t feel right. His life, though encountering little direct evil or suffering, lacks meaning and Truman can feel it. A universe where God orchestrated what we are and are not allowed to do would be similar. Without the risk of evil, we cannot have the possibility of true goodness and beauty.

What about natural disasters, then? Free will may explain why humans are allowed to cause other humans suffering, but why would God allow earthquakes to kill? First, I think that the natural disaster problem of suffering is much less powerful than the original argument. When I am distraught about the evil in the world, it is not usually the hurricanes and earthquakes I am worried about. That said, it is still a challenge for a Christian to answer, as obviously free will has nothing to do with natural disasters.

As someone who studies and teaches the earth sciences, I am quite familiar with natural disasters of all kinds. Interestingly, all major natural disasters have their roots in processes that contribute to the overall habitability of planet Earth. The molten core of Earth, for example, drives plate tectonics and generates the Earth’s magnetic field. Without the magnetic field, life could not survive on Earth’s surface due to intense solar wind (charged particles from the sun). Plate tectonics, among other things, creates livable surfaces above water (continents), replenishes nutrients to the Earth’s surface (through volcanic eruptions), and helps regulate global climate. Side effects of plate tectonics (a result of the molten core) include earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. These events can pose hazards for life on Earth. But without them Earth would probably not be habitable at all. Hurricanes are essentially release valves for the global climate system, distributing heat and moisture away from the equator to the rest of the world.

But couldn’t God have designed a habitable world without all of these dangerous side effects? I don’t know. But just the fact that they do play an important role weakens the force of the argument. A completely useless catastrophic occurrence would be a more difficult problem.

So where does this leave us? I don’t think the argument succeeds in showing that the Christian God cannot co-exist with evil, as God may have good reasons for allowing evil to exist. Natural disasters can still be difficult to accept, but there is at least a good reason for them to exist as well. I’m sure these answers won’t satisfy everyone, but I like to think it’s a start. I hope to read more contemporary philosophers’ take on this problem at some point (it’s been a few years). Comments?

Karate and Friendship

Apparently you need to practice something for at least 10,000 hours to master it. Also, we are all made of corn.

The Da Vinci Code

I just watched the last part of the movie The Da Vinci Code on TV. I watched it in the theater back when it first came out to see what all the fuss was about. It was OK as a movie: not terrible, not great. As history, though, it's kind of silly. I really can't believe that people take this book so seriously. Christians often get criticized for having "faith" in ancient texts, which may or may not be true or accurate. But a novel from some guy in New Hampshire happens to contain all these previously unknown secrets of history? Is this plausible?

There is no evidence that Jesus had an intimate relationship (nevermind children) with Mary Magdalene. I heard an interview with a scholar on NPR back when the movie was first out, and he discussed the texts which people suggest describes Jesus and Mary kissing, an indication of a physical relationship. The problem is that the texts are incomplete: many or most of the words are actually not there. The scholar quoted the sections in question. It was something like: ...and they were on their way..........from.......over to...........Galilee......Jesus.......lunch.....walking near the.....and then........Mary.......Jerusalem.....in between the........kissed.....returned from...etc etc. I'm obviously being facetious here, but it was something like that. The speculative leap from text like that to Jesus and Mary were lovers and had children is so large that, again, I find it hard to believe that people take this stuff seriously. The scholar said that there is no textual evidence for this stuff; people routinely kissed as a greeting back then, and Jesus and Mary were not the only ones mentioned in the text.

The assertion that Mary was in Da Vinci's painting of The Last Supper is also problematic. The painting is of Jesus and his disciples. There were twelve of them. If Mary is in there, John, a disciple, is not. I'm no art historian, but don't you think someone would have noticed if a disciple was missing before now? John, the disciple that is claimed to actually be Mary, is portrayed as feminine, and this is supposed to be evidence that it is a female. The problem: the character is wearing male clothing and it was not uncommon at the time (or in other works of Leonardo) for a subservient male to be portrayed as feminine. John's femininity is suppose to imply his lower status (compared to Jesus)and love for Jesus. The evidence for Mary being in the painting is therefore thin. Besides, are we really supposed to believe that Dan Brown (or the book he got this idea from, Holy Blood, Holy Grail) uncovered this secret that scholars have missed for the last 500 years?

Among other things, the movie stated that Newton was persecuted by the church. This is completely false. Newton was the leading man of one of the most conservative universities. He was a firm believer in God and believed his scientific work was uncovering the secrets God had used to create the universe. He also wrote extensively on theological matters (more than he did on science, actually).

The movie also laughably stated something along the lines of...did you ever wonder why the most talked about object in Christianity, the holy grail, is missing from Da Vinci's painting? The "holy grail" is never mentioned in the Bible, and I have never heard any Christian talk about it. It was probably an invention of some church in the Middle Ages who wanted a relic to draw pilgrims.

Anyway, if nothing else, The Da Vinci Code is an interesting example of peoples' propensity to believe nonsense as long as it somehow challenges orthodox views within Christianity.

Warm hands make you nice?

In a study from Yale University, researchers found that people who held something warm in their hands were nicer towards others than those who held something cold. The lead researcher says that subtle clues from our environment can impact our psychological disposition; warm hands help you have a "warm" heart. But...this study seems to overlook something. Something icy in your hand is uncomfortable; something warm is close to your natural body temperature and is therefore more "normal" than warm. It seems to me that merely the discomfort caused by the chill in your hand probably explains why people might be more irritable towards others, not some connection between physical warmth and psychological "warmth." In order to show that, people would need to hold something uncomfortably hot in their hands and still have the same friendliness towards others. If the comfort level is different between the two groups, then we don't know if it's really the temperature that makes the difference or the discomfort that makes the difference. Since more than one variable is involved, the results of the study are suspect. Thoughts?

The Postmodern Church

The following is an essay I wrote a number of years ago:


The Postmodern Church
A Museum or a Theme-park?


In Dinosaur in a Haystack, the late great paleontologist Stephen J. Gould spends an essay discussing the book and movie Jurassic Park, the rise of what he calls “dinomania,” and the subsequent commercialization of museums of natural history. He laments the introduction of the commercial world into the academic world. Gould’s discomfort with the mixing of the two worlds parallels my own reservations about current trends in the church, where business-like tactics are employed in order to attract certain demographics or higher general attendance.

After attempting to trace the roots of “dinomania,” the current fascination with dinosaurs found among children, and evaluating Michael Crichton’s book and Steven Spielberg’s movie Jurassic Park from the viewpoint of a professional paleontologist and longtime dinosaur fanatic, Mr. Gould describes the ambivalence he feels “about the Jurassic Park phenomenon, and about dinomania in general.” Natural history has always “been a beggar’s game,” Gould writes, the work of which “has never been funded by or for itself.” Natural historians have always had to work to convince patrons to support their work, often through arrangements resulting in the patron gaining something in return, like rare fossil specimens to add to their collection. Similarly, modern museums of natural history have found themselves far from the center of the public’s attention and looking for ways to increase attendance and interest. Mr. Gould writes:

"[C]onsider the plight of natural history museums in the light of commercial dinomania. In the past decade, nearly every major or minor natural history museum has succumbed (not always unwisely) to two great commercial temptations: to sell a plethora of scientifically worthless and often frivolous, or even degrading, dinosaur products by the bushel in their gift shops; and to mount, at high and separate admission charges, special exhibits of colorful robotic dinosaurs that move and growl but…teach nothing of scientific value about these animals. (Such exhibits could be wonderful educational aids, if properly labeled and integrated with more traditional material; but I have never seen these robots presented for much more than their colors and sound effects [the two aspects of dinosaurs, that must, for obvious reasons, remain most in the realm of speculation].)"

The idea is, of course, to bring more people in to the museums than would normally come. “These folks can then be led or cajoled into viewing the regular exhibits, and the museum’s primary mission of science education receives a giant boost.” Gould continues that he “cannot fault the logic of this argument,” but fears that his “colleagues are expressing a wish or a hope, not an actual result, and not even an outcome actively pursued by most museums.” He fears that what may have started simply as an attempt to increase interest in education could eventually become the main attraction, replacing and washing away the very reason those museums exist in the first place.

The postmodern church exists in the same culture and predicament as the museums. The culture (especially of the younger generations) is one of extreme commercialism and ubiquitous gimmicks; media of all kinds are designed to get your attention and to convince you that you need what they’re selling. This commercial mentality has allowed companies to be successful, and it is seeping into institutions normally unconcerned with savvy business practices. Museums and churches alike have seen the light, and both, it seems, have jumped on the marketing bandwagon. Like successful corporations, churches and religious groups try to capitalize on current trends and create programs or marketing they think will be appealing to whatever demographic they are targeting. This marketing mentality can be found in all sorts of church services and activities. Donald Miller, in his book Blue Like Jazz, writes about some of his experiences within the church:

"I felt like people were trying to sell me Jesus. I was a salesman for a while, and we were taught that you are supposed to point out the benefits of a product when you are selling it. That is how I felt about some of the preachers I heard speak. They were always pointing out the benefits of Christian faith. That rubbed me wrong. It’s not that there aren’t benefits, there are, but did they have to talk about spirituality like it’s a vacuum cleaner. I never felt like Jesus was a product. I wanted Him to be a person. Not only that, but they were always point- ing out how great the specific church was. The bulletin read like a brochure for Amway…I felt like I got bombarded with commercials all week and then went to church and got even more."

Worship services seem to be especially susceptible to commercialization. Worship services seem designed specifically to attract young people by having the trendiest music and by repeating established formulas which young people seem to respond to. Christian college conferences are no exception, and are perhaps leaders of this type of programming. At one particular conference I attended, the worship band tried entirely too hard to replicate the worship experience of a concert of the popular worship band Passion, imitating everything from the specific Bible verses read in between songs to the intonation the speaker used while reading them.

A few years ago, a friend was attending a Christian college to study music. She took a class on music in worship settings and was instructed in various methods of “emotional manipulation.” I know a musician and singer who, though talented and far from elderly, was replaced as worship leader at his church by someone younger in order to have maximum appeal to the younger crowd. That church is also one of many that now employ smoke and light shows during their worship services. A pastor I know has, in meetings with other ministers, been advised to implement various technologies into his church worship in order to increase appeal with the college-age crowd. A friend who graduated from college a few years ago was recently invited to visit the church of his middle-aged future mother and father-in-law. They were very excited to tell him about the worship band in their church and insisted he would love the worship service. The church had obeyed all the current trends, and therefore they were confident that this young person would buy right into it.

At issue here are two things: authenticity and purpose. These are the same two things Stephen J. Gould is concerned with in his essay. He writes:

"I may epitomize my argument in the following way: Institutions have essences – central purposes that define their integrity and being. Dinomania dramatizes a conflict between institutions with disparate essences – museums
and theme parks."

One institution exists to educate and enrich; the other to entertain. Gould goes on to say that both have their place. He happens to like theme parks. But museums are not theme parks. It is the same with the church. What is the central purpose of the church? The church of Jesus Christ does not exist to entertain, to attract people through gimmicks, or through marketing. The church exists to preach Christ and forgiveness and redemption. It seems reasonable to say that people should not be going to church for the show. My friend, at the church service with his in-laws, was not able to worship. The band seemed to be performing rather than leading worship. It seemed an act designed to impress people and to manipulate their emotions. The result is a simulation of an encounter with God, and what many young people would call a good time. Churches do not of course do this purposely. Just like the museum curators, the church leaders started out simply trying to think of ways to draw more people in while still having the goal of authentic teaching. However, the church loses something when the mentality changes from spiritual to commercial. Stephen J. Gould writes of museums:

"If we have no other aim than to attract more bodies…than we might as well convert our museums to theme parks and fill the gift shop with coffee mugs.
But then we will be truly lost…with no defining integrity of our own."

Should churches become theme parks in order to bring in a larger audience? Or should the church be offering what only a real church can: authentic spiritual teaching, prayer, and worship. Gould writes that museums should not despair of closing due to a lack of interest because they refrain from cheap marketing tactics, for:

"We have an absolutely wonderful product to flog – real objects of nature. We
may never entice as many visitors as Jurassic Park, but we can and do attract multitudes for the right reasons. Luckily – and I do not pretend to understand
why – authenticity stirs the human soul."

Donald Miller writes, “The problem with Christian belief – I mean real Christian belief, the belief that there is a God, and a devil, and a heaven and a hell – is that it is not a fashionable thing to believe.” Attempts to make the Christian church fashionable in order to increase attendance compromise the beautiful, timeless truths of Christianity and instead hook people by offering a good time and a chance to get absorbed in the current trends. Why should the church waste its time advertising superficial experiences when it has the real thing to offer? Mr. Gould is right: authenticity does stir the soul, and if the church is interested in helping people establish a meaningful connection with their Creator rather than a fleeting connection with their emotions, we must steer away from dependence on mere fashion. We are called to worship in spirit and in truth, not in good marketing and trendy performances. Don Miller writes:

"A friend of mine, a young pastor who recently started a church, talks to me from time to time about the new face of church in America – about the postmodern church. He says the new church will be different from the old one, that we will be relevant to culture and the human struggle. I don’t think any church has ever been relevant to culture, to the human struggle, unless it believed in Jesus and the power of His gospel. If the supposed new church believes in trendy music and cool Web pages, then it is not relevant to culture either. It is just another
tool of Satan to get people to be passionate about nothing."

The church should strive for excellence in their music and teaching, but it cannot worry about following every trend. Technology can be wonderful, but it is not central. We live in a culture obsessed with superficial thrills, gimmicks, and promises. The church should stand out as an institution with a profound disinterest in the superficial.

Mr. Gould ends his essay by observing that the commercial dinosaur phenomenon cannot last, but can only be ephemeral, “for they have no support beyond their immediate profitability. “This too,” he writes, “shall pass, and nothing of human manufacture can possibly challenge the staying power of a dinosaur bone – 65 million years (at least) in the making.” Trendy music and slick presentations may get people inside the church, but it is our responsibility to ensure that people realize such things are irrelevant to Christianity, that the church is not a theme-park, and that nothing can compare to a genuine encounter with God.

Obama or McCain (or Joe the plumber)?

I don't like politics, and I can't say I'm particularly well-informed politically (though I do hear quite a bit on NPR). I'm normally apathetic, and usually don't vote. I know, I'm not being a responsible citizen blah blah blah. Well, I am going to try to vote (hopefully my registration will go through) this time. The problem is I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for. As far as policy goes, I am divided between the two. As far as the candidates themselves, I have grown to like McCain less and less. It just seems that in both the debates and his campaign he has grown more desperate and silly. I did not like McCain's attempt to question Obama's character. It just seemed lame.

Interjection: I am watching the post-debate stuff, and just heard Mitt Romney ramble about how McCain obviously won and Hillary Clinton ramble about how Obama obviously won. This sort of blatant rhetorical spin is why I can't stand politics...

Ok, continuing on:
When McCain got really aggressive, it totally drove me away. If he had had something really substantial to be aggressive about maybe it would have been alright. But, he didn't (in my opinion). Obama was smooth as usual; he certainly stays more calm and collected. The result is McCain coming off as more negative (as his campaign has been) and more desperate. Obama seems intelligent and thoughtful; McCain, of course, has more experience.

On the issues, I am pro-life (I believe abortion is about convenience, not "reproductive rights", with the exception of special cases; for some reason, the special cases for most people justify the general case. The fact is that most abortions have nothing to do with health threats, rape, or incest. Most abortions have to do with girls, boys, and their parents not wanting to deal with the consequences of sex. In other words, if a fetus is unwanted it is not human; if it is wanted, it is human, as illustrated by cases where if a pregnant mother is killed the person may be charged with two murders. But this is another topic...). I also believe nuclear power would be a huge step in the right direction; most people are needlessly afraid of this. Nuclear power has enormous potential for affordable, immediate, and efficient alternative energy. No other alternative energy comes close to being able to break our dependence on fossil fuels. As far as taxes and health care, I feel underqualified to judge: I am not an economist. I wonder sometimes how people can be so quick to support this plan or that plan when they actually have no idea exactly what kind of effects it may have. Only economists and other scholars would have a clue; the rest of us are stuck towing the party line, it seems. That being said, I lean towards Obama's tax plan over McCain; I don't really care if businesses don't get tax cuts. They can manage like the rest of us. As far as education goes, both candidates sounded reasonable to me, and I am of course both for reform and more funding for education (being employed in this field). Ok, I am getting bored of my own ramblings now. I'm going to bed.

Alternative Energy Hype #3: BioFuels

Biofuels are a growing part of the movement to replace fossil fuels as our primary energy source. The idea is that fuel made from crops like corn, sugarcane, and switchgrass is sustainable and lowers greenhouse gas emissions by reabsorbing CO2 when the next batch is grown. Unfortunately biofuels are not quite the easy solution they seem. Over the past few years experts have identified a number of negative side-effects, including increased food prices and , surprisingly, an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

First, the production of fuel from sources like corn is not (currently) terribly efficient anyway. One gallon of corn ethanol provides less energy than a gallon of gasoline, making it more expensive per unit of energy. Production efficiency is only around 23%, meaning that it costs you 1 unit of energy to get 1.3 units of energy. Even in ideal conditions this process only results in a 22% reduction in CO2 emissions.

In a recent article in Science magazine, Searchinger et al. discuss how the land-use change associated with producing biofuels actually leads to an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The land needed to grow crops for biofuels has to come from somewhere, and this inevitably results in increased CO2 emissions. Converting forest or grassland for biofuel use releases all the carbon stored in that land as biomass. Searchinger et al. estimate that corn ethanol use will indirectly double greenhouse gas emissions. Converting existing cropland has the same effect, and has the added effect of raising food price. This in turn, according to an article by Morton et al. in PNAS, has increased deforestation by farmers responding to the increased food prices and needing to clear more land for food crops. Deforestation also, of course, adds more carbon to the atmosphere. Increased grain prices have also had a detrimental effect on poorer countries, leading to food shortages. In an article in this month's Science magazine, Robertson et al. write that in addition to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, grain-based biofuels (like corn) also lead to increased soil erosion and nutrient loss, decreased air quality, and decreased biodiversity.

So, corn ethanol fuel, the current leading biofuel, is not quite as green as it may appear. This is not to say that biofuels in general do not have promise; they do, but they must be approached with caution. Certain crops (e.g. perennial grasses) and certain methods may have greater potential for reducing greenhouse gases. Careful research will be required to effectively replace fossil fuels with biofuels. For now, I think it's fair to say that, like the hydrogen fuel cell, biofuels create more hype than help. On the other hand, we've got to start somewhere, and biofuels probably should play (and will play) an important role in our energy economy.