DBT01, Round One: cl
Posted in (A)Theist Debate League, DBT01, Debate on | 8 minutes | 35 Comments →
I’ve concluded that needless suffering exists. On my view, sin caused death, suffering and so-called “natural evil.” According to Genesis, God made the world good and humans had eternal life. Sin entailed a fall from the highest possible good. It was not necessary, God did not desire it. The suffering sin produced cannot possibly be logically required for the higher good to obtain because the highest possible good had already obtained. Criticisms that God “could have made a world without suffering” are nullified.
Even though suffering is needless, eliminating suffering doesn’t eliminate any higher good. Suffering isn’t necessary to produce goods. Obviously, Jesus didn’t believe that removing suffering eliminated higher good, else no sick would have been healed, nor would commands to heal be issued. In fact, we would have been commanded to ignore suffering. This defangs Peter’s “obstruction of divine justice” argument on the spot.
This might complicate judging, but that’s where the logic lead. I’ll counter as many of Peter’s arguments as I can, and see where the second round takes us.
Inherently Fallacious
I recently said that most POE arguments reduce to ignorance and/or incredulity. [1] I stand by my words. Peter’s inability to conceive of a higher good or logical requirement does not justify even the provisional assumption that none exists, and to posture otherwise is to argue from incredulity. [2] Similarly, my inability to identify a higher good or logical requirement does not justify even the provisional assumption that none exists, and to posture otherwise is to argue from ignorance. [3] Things that seem intuitively true can be false (e.g. geocentrism), and things that seem intuitively false can be true (e.g. quantum mechanics). Peter needs more than intuition to mount a successful POE argument.
Honest Oversights Or Theatrics?
Peter offers analogies that should raise the suspicion of any rational person. To claim that reindeer can fly one must unjustifiedly assign a property (flight) to a member of a class (ruminant mammal). This is unjustified because no other member shares said property (no ruminant mammals fly). However, to claim that Peter’s examples of suffering might be logically required to obtain higher goods, one need only assume that a member of a class shares the same properties as other members (Peter agrees that many members of the class “suffering” are logically required to obtain higher goods).
Regarding Theodicy #6, to claim that rewarding temporal suffering with eternal joy is “the equivalent of punching someone in the face and then giving them $1,000” is to mistakenly equate a cheap, finite reward ($1,000) with an infinitely valuable one (eternal joy).
These are textbook examples of the fallacy from false analogy. [4] Magic notwithstanding, there is no remote possibility of reindeer flying. However, since several members of the class “suffering” are logically required to obtain higher goods, the possibility of Peter’s examples following suit seems significant. So why would he imply only a “remote possibility” that his examples might be logically required to obtain higher goods? Why would he imply that a measly $1,000 is commensurate to eternal joy?
Taking The Offensive
Peter claimed his examples are “proof beyond reasonable doubt” that needless suffering exists. Citing geneticist Stephen O’Brien, PBS writes:
The areas that were hardest hit by the Black Plague match those where the gene for HIV resistance is the most common today. [5]
Modern science—the atheist’s oracle—suggests the plague may have facilitated HIV resistance. That the pertinent mutation might not have obtained given a different genetic algorithm seems fair grounds for at least the provisional assumption of logical requirement. Now, Peter can say, “But God could have just zapped it away,” or some other variant of “Why didn’t God do it the way I want,” but that’s purely ad hoc not to mention it ignores the fact God already gave us a world without disease and we ruined it.
Alternatively, historians such as Bowsky (1971) and Bridbury (1983) suggest the plague may have been a key turning point in European economic development: wages would not have risen had there not been such a drastic increase in the demand for laborers. Isn’t a deficit of laborers logically required in order to spur demand? Why does Peter act stumped? Are these not grounds to doubt Peter’s claim that his examples are “proof beyond reasonable doubt” of needless suffering?
Theodicies
Let’s look at #4. To say “God could have instilled any of these lessons, love for God, or character from birth” is just a mere assertion that does not explain why God should have done that over some other route. Peter continues,
Given that God knows all lessons, has infinite love for himself, and is of perfect virtue, yet has not suffered, there is no reason to think that suffering is logically necessary for these three things.
According to the Bible, God suffered terribly. Per the same logic securing his previous conclusion, mustn’t Peter concede that, since God has suffered, we have reason to believe suffering might be logically necessary for those things?
Peter’s note that the soul-building theodicy cannot explain animal suffering is irrelevant. One cannot justifiedly fault a theodicy for not explaining a particular type of suffering when another theodicy can (consequence for sin). #4, defanged.
Same with Theodicy #5. Peter writes,
…God could have made something meaningful instead that did not involve suffering…
God did. We ruined it.
…removing the suffering of nonhuman animals and removing birth defects would require an unfathomable amount of re-engineering biology…
That’s irrelevant. God didn’t allow these things so we could solve puzzles.
In the 14th century, humans were tasked with stopping the bubonic plague – not only did they have very little medical resources and containment plans, they lacked a germ theory of disease altogether.
The Black Death was a moral evil that deserved punishment. Regarding Theodicy #2, Peter said victims “were not especially more sinful” than people today. According to the Bible, that’s false. Filthiness is sin.
The suspected primary culprit of the pandemic is Yersinia pestis, a bacterium carried by fleas living on rats which permeated the large, filthy cities of the era. [6]
The importance of hygiene was recognised only in the nineteenth century; until then it was common that the streets were filthy, with live animals of all sorts around and human parasites abounding. [7]
Take heed, foolish humans! We were warned not to become “defiled” by rats or other animals designated as “unclean” [8] and warned not to eat anything they touched. [9] God commanded us to bury dung outside city limits, [10] to avoid contact with bodily discharges because they are “unclean,” [11] to cleanse anything a person with bodily discharge touches, [12] to evacuate and seal up any house with “greenish or reddish” mildew, [13] and if the mildew persists after seven days, to “scrape the walls” inside the house, [14] remove any contaminated stones [15] and dump them outside city limits. [16]
Among other things, Wikipedia lists, “decay or decomposure of the skin while the person is still alive, high fever, and extreme fatigue” as symptoms of bubonic plague, [17] and God specifically warned that failure to obey would result in—wait for it—wasting diseases and fever that would drain away our life. [18]
Moral evil is any evil act, event or state of affairs that is directly attributable to the actions of a moral agent. The Black Death ravished Europe because moral agents sinned by disobeying God’s Holy Word and allowing filthiness, vermin and parasites to defile them. God warned us. We didn’t need to suffer the bubonic plague to get to Heaven, we only needed to listen to God’s Word.
Bringing It All Home
This evidence is so strong even Peter claims it proves God’s goodness and glory “beyond a shadow of a doubt,” leaving him no rational alternative but to abandon atheism and acknowledge the God of the Bible. Peter recently wrote,
…knowledge of the germ theory of disease contained in the Bible rather than left to be discovered by fallible scientists would have saved billions of lives. Why [God] didn’t do so, given that it would prove [God’s] glory and goodness beyond a shadow of a doubt, is unknown.” [19, emphasis mine]
My list is just the tip of the iceberg, and already we have something akin to modern hygiene and germ theory, delivered 3,000 years before Pasteur was so much as a twinkle in his father’s eye—by people atheists often denigrate as ignorant goat-herders. Another source notes,
Jews who obeyed these godly instructions during the time of the black plague were not affected in the same way as others. [20]
Might that be because God provided clear, comprehensive hygienic commands in the Torah? I agree with Peter that a “god” who makes people suffer pointlessly is worthy of condemnation, cruel, malevolent, and fundamentally opposed to love and compassion, [21] but as my arguments have undeniably demonstrated, God did exactly what Peter asked for, and much more. Wouldn’t it be a tragedy to forfeit eternal life for an argument so weak it commits one to doubting God’s existence simply because they stubbed their toe?
Garren
says...“We are not arguing whether the belief in the traditional Abrahamic God is justified, we are arguing about whether needless suffering exists. Just that, nothing more.”
– Peter, in comments for the first round
“I’ve concluded that needless suffering exists.”
– CL, in round two
So, we’re done right?
Carpinteiro do Universo
says...In my humble opinion, needless suffering does not entail the inexistance of any deity. But, is this just to say that the Evidential POE is a ‘bad check’?
Oh, many thanks about the permission for translating…
Adamoriens
says...Well, it will entail the nonexistence of those deities deities which would’ve prevented needless suffering.
cl
says...Carpinteiro do Universo,
Well, I think it disproves the existence of the Cosmic Coddler—but it seems to be mainly atheists who think the Cosmic Coddler should exist, so… yeah, it’s pretty much a bad check.
Peter Hurford
says...Cl, let’s save talk about the Cosmic Coddler for either in our debate statements or for when the debate is over.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Why would you call the suffering for sin unnecessary, when presumably good would be diminished had God not punished man for his sins?
The suffering is unnecessary in that man didn’t have to sin. But that’s part of the price of free will.
In general, freely willed acts aren’t called unnecessary, although they aren’t necessary in the sense of being inevitable. Why should the acts constituting original sin be treated any differently than other unfortunate but freely willed acts?
TaiChi
says...“So, we’re done right?”
I’m wondering this as well. Cl, can you point us to where the debate topic was agreed?
Ronin
says...cl wrote:
Why would suffering be needless? Would it not be a consequence of the “fall”? And/or, are you intending needless suffering to mean as Stephen pointed out, (“The suffering is unnecessary in that man didn’t have to sin.”)?
Thinking Emotions
says...Ronin, hey there. I think he means the latter, and if he doesn’t, he means the suffering is needless insofar as Peter might define it. Of course, there’s a reason you and Stephen are asking him and not me, so I’m not trying to speak for him. Just thought I’d throw my input out there. The message I’m receiving is that needles suffering exists, but it was Adam and Eve’s fault, so humans should blame them and not God. Yeah, because they’re definitely more accountable for all of humanity than the creator of humanity… this point is controversial at best and horribly wrong at worst.
This debate is shaping up to be monumentally disappointing. I would have rather seen this framed as a lengthy discussion. To be fair, it’s not just cl’s fault. This debate was supposed to be over the evidential POE and it seems like Peter’s POE is definitely a logical one. He has more or less stated that implicit in the existence of needless suffering is the non-existence of God. Peter’s argument, when summarized, basically comes out to this:
1. The Abrahamic God is typically defined as all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
2. An all-good deity would eliminate needless suffering.
3. There is needless suffering.
4. An all-good deity such as the Abrahamic God does not exist.
Is it just me, or this is a logical POE? The difference between the logical POE and evidential POE is negligible (read: pointless), but it goes something like this. The logical POE insists that if God exists, evil does not. The converse would be true as well. Peter’s insisting that if needless suffering exists, God does not. We’ve got the same form, but a different type of evil. Sure, Pete can say 4 is out of the scope of this debate, but once cl conceded that needless suffering exists in some sense, there are only two more things to talk about: (1) is 4 a corollary from 3? and (2) is it fallacious to say needless suffering exists? (2) is relevant to the debate, I think, but isn’t getting much attention.
cl, this is unfortunate. These kind of debates are where intellectual honesty and productive discussion go to die, which are two things you seem to really cherish. Besides, I feel the whole debacle of needless suffering may as well be another incarnation of defining evil. The POE comes down to compassion. If you ask me, a being that can prevent or could have prevented most suffering and didn’t is not a compassionate being.
cl
says...Peter Hurford,
So, y’all can talk about whatever you want at your own blog, even though it relates directly to the debate, but I can’t even make a joke on my own? I must have missed that rule. And you wonder why I joke about atheists always wanting to have it their way!
:)
TaiChi,
The debate index contains all announcements. I intended to deny that needless suffering exists, but once I saw Peter’s modified definition, I realized that denial of needless suffering so defined would be unbiblical. So, rather than quibble over definitions, I decided to simply argue what I believed and let the chips fall where they may. Surely you don’t think my concession that NS exists means POE succeeds? I mean, it’s clear to me: we have to widen the scope of the debate.
Stephen R. Diamond,
Neither sin nor the suffering it necessarily entails are logically required to obtain a higher good. We had already attained the highest good.
Ronin,
Hey there. Good to see you back. Peter defined “necessary suffering” as “logically required to obtain a higher good.” Any suffering that is not logically required to obtain a higher good is needless. Neither sin nor the suffering it necessarily entails are logically required to obtain a higher good. We had already attained the highest good.
cl
says...ThinkingEmotions,
I wasn’t ignoring you. Your comment got caught in the filter and I replied before I found it. Welcome back!
I’m sorry you feel that way. I actually feel like it’s already been hugely rewarding. As I poured over source materials for hour upon hour, I literally felt waves of clarity that I’ve never experienced in a POE discussion before. I even managed to present Peter with strong evidence for God, defined on his own terms. IMHO, that’s a success.
Well, then don’t get caught up in the points. After all, it *IS* just a lengthy discussion—with judges. There’s no reason it couldn’t continue afterwards, either. See the upside, my friend!
I agree. Peter was the one who shrank back from the “ergo” part of our debate. I agreed, more to oblige and “go with the flow” than anything, but I’m more than happy to debate the “ergo” part or the so-called “non-controversial assumption #2.”
It is what it is. All I did was follow the logic and the Bible, and I arrived at the conclusion I did. Like I said, I’ve emerged refreshed, recharged, and ready to rip all POE’s ten times harder than before—hopefully without appealing to any tongue-tying theodicies.
Adamoriens
says...Rowe’s original argument is written in deductive form, and yet it’s widely regarded as an evidential argument from evil. The salient difference between the common logical argument from evil and the evidential argument from evil is not the form, but the amount of credence that can be given to the factual premise. So where Peter argues that, probably, there is needless suffering, it entails that probably, there is no God (though this doesn’t quite follow from his definition on needless suffering), and this is just what evidence against God is supposed to constitute.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Are you familiar with the expressions in economics “ex ante” and “ex post”? It seems that the suffering sin entails is necessary ex post–once the sin had been committed. God could have avoided punishing sin, but the world, presumably, would have been worse.
What I’m wondering is why you take an ex ante perspective on the Fall, whereas you take an ex post perspective on the evil produced by other acts of free will that don’t necessarily fall within God’s Plan.
Peter Hurford
says...I’ve sent an email to Cl to sort some of this out. More on the issues raised in these comments I feel bound not to say.
cl
says...Just so everybody is clear, I’m not hostile, disappointed, disgruntled or anything else (with the exception of what I already said about argument flooding but that’s just peripheral). I’m quite optimistic about our debate, and I have no desire to put on a show. If y’all like it, cool. If not, well… no big deal.
Adamoriens,
Of course, it’s a valid argument. But so is:
Like I said, such arguments only disprove the existence of a Cosmic Coddler. The heart of the issue is the so-called “non-controversial” assumption #2 in Peter’s opening statement.
Stephen R. Diamond,
No, I wasn’t familiar with those terms, but I just checked them out.
I agree.
I agree. It would have been much, much worse. We’d have a bunch of sinners who never died!
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Specifically, I’m not sure what you have in mind when you say “ex post perspective” and “ex ante perspective.”
cl
says...Maybe this will help:
Neither sin nor suffering were logically required to obtain a higher good, so in that sense, all suffering *IS* needless (ex ante, Stephen?).
Humanity sinned, and at that point God had two options: scrap the whole gig, or allow sin and suffering and “get back to Eden” somehow.
Then, is extant suffering logically required to obtain a higher good? I took “logically required” to mean the higher good could not have obtained any other way. Is this current world with all its sin and suffering the *ONLY* way God could have obtained the higher good? Obviously not, because the higher good already obtained. Further, God may have had several options for “getting back to Eden,” and may have chose this one for some specific purpose—but that doesn’t all of sudden mean that extant suffering becomes “logically required.”
So…?
Adamoriens
says...All I mean to pick out is the difference between the famous logical argument and evidential arguments. With respect to the needfulness of needless suffering, I prefer the way of Rowe`s argument, where gratuitous suffering is defined in such a way that it is actually non-controversially incompatible with a morally-perfect God, and then one proceeds to adduce evidence supporting the existence of gratuitous suffering (if, truly, there is any).
The evils we are trying to explain appear somewhat more serious than mere failure on God’s part to be more indulgent and overprotective. Which isn’t to say that there are no justifying reasons for God to permit apparently gratuitous suffering, just that the “coddling” description is more inflammatory than thought-provoking.
cl
says...Alright, in the interest of not incurring conflict of interest charges, no more comments from me.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Contrast that with John finds a stray kitten, and tortures it to death in his basement. If someone were to argue that the cat suffered unnecessarily, I think you’d reply that the suffering wasn’t unnecessary because allowing it was part of allowing John to have free will. (Otherwise, proving unnecessary suffering would be too easy.) So why do you say (if I’m right that you do) that the cat’s suffering was necessary and the suffering for sin was unnecessary?
cl
says...I’ll answer in an email…
Daniel
says...My comments are up for cl’s first round here:
http://vexingquestions.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/peter-hurford-v-cl-on-needless-suffering-cls-first/
Matt DeStefano
says...My comments are up here: http://www.soulsprawl.com/2012/02/22/cls-rejoinde/
I was not expecting the debate to take this turn, and I have to say I’m excited to see how the rest of this will play out. The scoring is a bit haphazard given the turn, but I think this response may more properly set the context of the overall debate.
Stephen R. Diamond
says....
This can wait until Peter posts or whatever. I thought I’d raise the point:
Who is “we.” You, CL, were born into this evil world, but you hadn’t had even the opportunity to sin before you were born.
So, how do you see the punishment for Adam and Eve’s sinfulness as just ?
And mustn’t it be just, to warrant saying “we,” those who are punished, brought it on ourselves?
You (and the Bible) seem to endorse collective punishment for the sins of individuals.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...A disconnect on purposes confuses this debate. For Peter, it’s a question of what inferences are warranted from the facts about whether some suffering is unnecessary. For CL, whether Christian doctrine is consistent in absolving God of responsibility for unnecessary suffering.
Peter might advantageously accept CL’s approach (and stipulate to CL’s “facts”) and argue that the punishment of humanity for the sins of two humans proves that unnecessary suffering exists. CL absolves suffering because sin warranted it, but since the punishment was unjustifiable—the sins of the forebears don’t justify the punishment of their descendents—the punishment wasn’t necessary. Punishment’s necessity depends on the demands of justice, and punishing us for Adam and Eve’s sins is unjust.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...“CL absolves suffering” should be CL absolves God of responsibility for human suffering
cl
says...You know, because Stephen R. Diamond says so!
Thinking Emotions
says...Stephen,
I agree with you on all counts. I’ve been down this road before with cl, Ronin, and a few other Christian commentators. It was an educational conversation, albeit a tad frustrating. I still don’t feel there’s sufficient warrant to believe that it’s just to punish the rest of mankind for Adam and Eve’s mistake, but I also admit that I’m ignorant of Biblical hermeneutics and theology. There seems to be more a gap in knowledge than in comprehension here — at least, that’s how it is on my end. I don’t know how much you know.
Adamoriens,
Thank you! That clears it up. So basically, both forms of the argument are considered deductive but the credence invested into the factual premise (existence of evil/necessary suffering) is different? That explains it perfectly. I do not really understand how one expresses a probabilistic judgment of a necessary entity, though. I’m guessing the easiest way to solve that issue is to say the judgment is not about the entity itself but the truth value of a belief in such an entity.
cl,
I’ll try to be more optimistic! I meant to add in some stuff about how I’m sure this is a rewarding intellectual exercise for both you and Peter, but it got carried away in my seas of whining and complaining. I’m looking forward to Peter’s reply and your further responses. The passages you posted from Leviticus are certainly very impressive at first glance. I appreciate the fact that you’re aiming more at our hearts and minds than at winning the debate.
Ronin
says...TE,
Hey there.
cl,
Thanks. Glad your site is back up. It is unfortunate the debate has been postponed. I believe you and Peter were doing pretty well. IMO, Matt and Daniel’s assessments of the debate thus far seems spot on. I hope everything is okay…
Carpinteiro do Universo
says...Well, there is my translation of the debate until now:
Peter: http://carpinteiro-universo.blogspot.com/2012/02/postando-aqui-primeira-fala-de-peter.html
Cl: http://carpinteiro-universo.blogspot.com/2012/02/debate-1-round-1-cl.html
My personal comment? The Cl’s response was very impressive. In fact, the opening was so bold and unexpected that even the judges become impressive!
I am very excited about the progress of debate.
Many thanks for the permission, Cl and Peter!
Grace
says...I agree with Thinking Emotions that this debate has turned out to be disappointing. I was looking forward to Peter and CL finishing the debate they had started last year regarding the Evidential Problem of Evil. You noticed, thinking Emotions, that Peter combined the Evidential Problem of Suffering with the Logical Problem of Evil; he tried that on my husband’s blog and I called him out on that because I had addressed the two arguments separately, and I also did not use the same theodicies for both arguments. So it looks like Peter has redefined this argument to his advantage. I haven’t seen William Lane Craig combine both arguments, so I am curious as to how this will end if the arguments are combined. I personally would keep them separated because suffering is something that can actually be measured, but good job, Peter, for throwing in the word “logically” into the definition of needless suffering and thus combining the Evidential Problem of Suffering with the Logical Problem of Evil.
Grace
says...**correction-I was looking forward to Peter and CL finishing the debate they had started last year regarding the Evidential Problem of Suffering.
Bret
says...Thanks for doing the debate guys. I have some thoughts. Perhaps Adam and Eve lived in a world where the highest possible good had been obtained. On the actions of their own free will they fell from the possibility of perfection. But it seems like their fall should be seen as exactly that: THEIR fall. Otherwise, God is treating the collective human population to ever exist as a monolith of free will. This theology seems to say that individuals are not sovereign in their free will. So it would seem that the evidential argument from evil could be applied to the course of a sovereign human life, with free will distinct from others, and unless that individual is given the opportunity for the highest possible good on this earth that Adam and Eve were, the dice is loaded, and the situation unjust. Does God view humanity as a monolith?
Peter Hurford
says...Grace,
Which is your husband’s blog? I’d be interested in going back to look at what i wrote.
I promise you that any attempt of mine to combine / conflate the logical and evidential problem of evils was not some sort of sneaky and calculated attempt to gain an unfair advantage, but rather a mistake of mine in not properly understanding the issue at hand and not knowing how to adequately communicate it in a way that would make me understood.