UnderAgeThinker

I hope you have enjoyed reading my previous two posts entitled, The Barnyard Dialogues, “Part I, Two Chickens Take on the Problem of Evil” and “Part II, Two Chickens Take another Swipe at the Problem of Evil.”  .  If you have not then, click the links and enjoy them. 

If you have read them then I’m sure you are aware that they are written as satire and not merely for entertainment value.  I want to present here a partial explanation of what was meant by the stories.  I want to say here, what I meant to say there, only this time without any talking chickens.  So here goes.

As the subtitles say, the story is about the problem of evil.  For those of you who are not familiar with the problem of evil, I have placed the “Logical Problem of Evil” below.  It is taken from Wikipedia.

Logical problem of evil

1. God exists. (premise)
2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word “God”)
3. God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition)
4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition)
5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
   1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
   2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
   3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, or God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent (i.e. God is omnipotent and omniscient but not all-benevolent, omnipotent and all-benevolent but not omniscient, or omniscient and all-benevolent but not omnipotent).

To be simplistic and brief, the problem of evil says that a good god and evil cannot co-exist, therefore one or the other must not exist.  Because most people have experienced evil in some form, it is used to make a case against the existence of god.  A solution to the problem of evil is called a “theodicy”.  Though many different theodicies exist, what I have tried to demonstrate through the Barnyard Dialogues is a particular theodicy based on semantics.  I suspect that others have noticed it before me and, I believe that this should only lend credence to it.  I will explain it below.

Evil is not an entity that exists on its own merit.  Evil exists as a parasite to good.  In the absolute absence of good there could be no evil.  The opposite is not true, good does not require evil in order to be good.  Something is good when it fulfills the purpose it was meant to serve.  Something lacks goodness when it fails to fulfill the purpose it was meant for.  Something is evil when it fulfills a purpose contrary to what it was meant for.  Therefore, having a good purpose is a prerequisite for being evil. 

So in order to call something evil someone, must first give it a purpose for it to pervert.  So Evil must be defined in relation to somebody.  The vast majority of the time evil is defined in relation to either man or to God. 

In the first illustration with the chickens, Clare defines Evil (missing eggs) by chickens (man).  She then comes to the conclusion that because evil exists, the farmer (God) must not.  She sees this as a mistake when she learns that the farmer is the one taking the eggs for his own good purpose.  In the Problem of Evil, it is a mistake to define evil on man’s terms and then apply it to God.  God is by definition a greater being than man, just as the farmer in the story, is a greater being than the chickens. 

In Part II, Clare defines evil in terms of the farmer (God) but this also is a mistake as it presupposes that the farmer does in fact exist.  If evil as defined by God exists then, God must exist.  If God does not exist, then neither does evil as defined by God and the whole argument falls apart as, evil must exist in order to be a problem. 

It seems to me that the problem of evil is that it cannot be defined in terms that would cast doubt on the existence of God. 

I am constantly amazed at how often people cherry pick the facts to suit their own arguments.  I expect this from advertisements and unfortunately I have grown accustomed to spin in the news, but I am seeing it more and more from people who I would expect better from.  Many of these people are even arguing for positions I agree with, but do it through bad reasoning.  When you argue from poor reasoning you open yourself up to criticism and discredit the position you were arguing in favor of.  You better serve your position by keeping quiet than by deceptive and poor arguing tactics. 

The blogs are the worst about this.  The more I get into blogging, the more blogs I read and it seems that these otherwise intelligent and ethical people believe that they can misconstrue, misrepresent, misquote, and omit anything that is not supportive of their point.  The most common things to cherry pick from seem to be the Bible, the Constitution, the Quran, and now Me!  Oh well, I suppose that comes with the territory.  I honestly cannot understand how someone gets satisfaction from winning an argument or making a profound point when it is based on faulty reasoning.  It is beyond me.  I am behooved.   One of the most common places to find this fake arguing is under the philosophy tag.  I would like to point out that philosopher means lover of wisdom.  You cannot love wisdom if you do not first love truth. 

Another dishonest tactic that is getting more popular, is to make a statement and then cite some fact as support when the fact in reality has little or nothing to do with the statement made.  I am forced to conclude that many people are so blinded by their convictions that they cannot even defend them properly, so blinded that they can no longer see any logic in contrary positions and thus they, cannot make a logical argument against them.  When people get to this point, facts of little relevance become sound and insurmountable arguments to bolster their own position. 

If you truly believed in whatever position you were arguing for then you should be more than happy to bring all the facts to light as they should reveal the truth in your position.  When you feel that you must filter information then you must have very little faith  in your position.  If that is the case then the best that can be said of you is that you don’t know what you believe and the worst is that you are pushing a position which you believe to be false. 

The purpose of engaging in an argument should be to discover the truth, not to bolster your own ego and not to “win” at all costs.  This is especially true when the argument is one sided, as in a blog post (unless you get comments).

“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on what they find attractive.” -Pascal

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” 2 Timothy 4:3 ESV

Intelligent Design and its proponents have been accused of making a war on science.  However, most of the leading figures in the I.D. movement are themselves scientists.  It is not a matter of method; the methods of I.D. scientists are scientific.  They are more or less identical to those used in archeology and forensics.  The reason I.D. is denounced by the scientific community is the conclusion drawn.  According to Dr. William Dembski, I.D. is, “the study of patterns in nature that are best described as signs of intelligence.”  It is these signs of intelligence that have the conventional scientific community up in arms.  They take offence not because the conclusions are not logical and not because the methods are not scientific* but rather because, the materialist ideology that pervades in the scientific community does not allow for the possibility of intelligence.  Some scientists are willing to entertain the idea of a designing intelligence but not scientifically.  That kind of thing is in their view, for the church to deal with and not the scientific community.  These scientist believe that science is the study of what is natural and thus anything invoking the supernatural is by definition not science.  The I.D. scientists are fighting for a broader definition of science, one that would allow for the possibility of the supernatural when that is the most logical conclusion.  Thus, they are not fighting against science but rather to reform it.  Just as protestants did not fight against the church but to reform it and that era is now know as the Protestant Reformation.  What is being attempted by the I.D. proponents is a scientific reformation not a war on science. 

So this all comes down to who’s definition of what is scientific you accept.  Those who hold to the narrower view of science do not say that the I.D. researchers do not have a rightto do their research but that it is not scientific.  So if everyone is willing to live and let live, what is the big deal?  Why get hung up on who is scientific and who is not?  The answer is two fold, schooling and money.  If the broader definition of science is accepted then the I.D. proponents would be officially doing “science” and could apply for and get government grants.  These grants would then not go to the scientists who are today fighting for the narrower definition. 

If I.D. is accepted as science it would also be taught in the science class along side with and as a competing theory to evolution.  Evolution is the sacred cow of materialist ideology.  Richard Dawkins said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”  For the materialists, teaching anything that competes with evolution in a science class is like teaching the Quran in Sunday school.  It simply cannot be done. 

While I haven’t thought of a way to solve the first dilemma accept for the government to stop giving out research grants altogether (and stop taxing us for them!).  I believe I can solve the problem of the competing theories in the classroom and it seems only logical.  Aristotle. 

That’s it.  Aristotle solved this problem way way back when.  You see today what is known as the theory of evolution is said (by mainstream scientists) to be a scientific fact.  Michael Ruse famously said, “Evolution is fact, Fact, FACT!”  I suspect that some I.D. proponents would say (though they are not as loud) that intelligent design theory is a scientific fact.  Both of these “scientific facts” are called theories, even by their supporters.  This is because no one alive today witnessed the dawn of the universe (or of life), no one wrote down what happened (religious texts aside), and no photographs of the event survive.  So no matter the volume of evidence that is collected to support any particular theory, it will all be circumstantial and thus subject to interpretation and not of sufficient quality to be proof beyond any doubt. 

So what does Aristotle have to do with all of this?  Aristotle distinguished between general knowledge and scientific knowledge.  The scientists who hold to the narrower view of science and still believe in the supernatural are making a distinction between kinds of knowledge as well.  Another example of this distinction is demonstrated by the difference in the phrases, “beyond reasonable doubt” and “beyond the shadow of a doubt.”  Aristotle said that for any knowledge to qualify as scientific knowledge required demonstration.  What is meant by demonstration, is that not only do we know something, but we know that it must necessarily be, and cannot not be.  This is the criteria that I propose we use in determining what is a scientific fact.  The very fact that there is debate about I.D. and evolution excludes both of them.  So neither need be or should be in a science class. 

*I am obviously not saying that mainline scientists accept the claims of I.D.  They do however give de facto recognition to both the logic and the methods through their acceptance of archeology, forensics, and the like as legitimate scientific fields of study. 

Often times people use the statement “there is no controversy” when engaged in a debate. It has enjoyed wide usage recently in the Evolution and Intelligent Design debates.

Much has been made of the identity of the god of Christianity and the god of Islam and whether they are the same being.  Many people want to claim that they are the same in hopes that this will foster brotherly feelings, tolerance, and in time peace.  Those who deny the same-god theory tend to be fundamentalist on either side who have little or no desire to associate one faith with the other.  I however contend that the whole controversy is one of semantics and largely meaningless and I intend to demonstrate it below. 

Muslim’s do not worship Jesus.  Christians worship Jesus.  Therefore Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god. 

Christians claim to worship the god of Abraham.  Muslims claim to worship the god of Abraham.  Therefore Christians and Muslims do worship the same god. 

The law of non-contradiction says that a thing can not, be and not be at the same time.  In the above two arguments all the premises are true and the logic is sound; they are both true and valid statements.  Yet they contradict one another.

The reason for this is that the English word god is being used to mean two different things.  Like I said before, it’s semantics.  From an anthropological perspective Christianity and Islam are both monotheistic Abrahamic religions and the god is the same.  From a theological perspective Jehovah shares very few characteristics with Allah.  Additionally, the two faiths are not even remotely compatible to any but the most extreme liberals of either faith.  They are mutually exclusionary.  So they do not worship the same god.  That is the semantical difference in the anthropological definition of god and the theological definition of god. 

Those outside these faiths and liberals within them will continue to claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same god.  However, liberals and outsiders are not the driving force in any religion or belief system, the fundamentalists are.  Outsiders are by definition outside the faith.  Liberals are by definition far from the heart of the faith.  If it were not so, then they would be fundamentalists.  And no informed fundamentalist Muslim or Christian would claim that they worship theologically the same god.  Muslims do not worship Jesus Christ and Christians do not worship an unknowable god, as Allah is described in the Qur’an. 

Many of you know that I have an unusual interest in education and spend a great deal of time on the subject.  For a long time I have struggled with defining education.  What is it that an education would not be an education without?  In modern usage the word has so many meanings as to almost render it meaningless.  For example, we talk of high school education, college education, home education, correctional education, classical education, dog obedience education, liberal education, Christian education, Catholic education, progressive education.  When a man is learning a trade like IT or bricklaying we say they are getting an education.  We talk of the education of the Founding Fathers and of Aristotle educating Alexander The Great.  Often times tribal leaders in the remotest parts of the world who have never seen a book in their lives are said to be educated in their ways.  Some would insist that no education is complete without Kant, Rousseau, and a healthy does of dead languages; others insist the best education comes from life experience. 

So I asked myself what I could not imagine an education without?  Algebra, Greek, Music, Reading, Bible, Science, History, Cultural Studies?  I don’t think any of them are required for an education.  They are enhancers, all merely branches of a greater vine.  The only thing I can find to be the vine, the only uniting thread that runs through all of them is Truth. 

The essence of education must necessarily be to instill in the student a jealous love of truth and, that not for any utility it may bring but rather because it is truth.

In this sense I would consider an IT guy or a bricklayer to be skilled tradesmen but not necessarily educated.  MDs, JDs, and PHDs should not necessarily be considered educated either and it would certainly be a big mistake to assume that all college grads are educated.  However, because all these people are said to be educated in our culture I propose a new term, philalathia (say it with me, fil-u-lay-the-u) which means lover of truth in Greek.  Philosopher by way of comparison means  lover of wisdom.  Being a philalathia is a prerequisite for being a philosopher.  The term philalathia may exist in Greek already and I suspect it (or something close to it) does, but I think we should adopt it to mean educated in the most literal sense. 

           I found myself, not too long ago pondering the question of beauty, namely what is beauty and can it be classified or quantified. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a common phrase often thrown about when discussing a third party’s new love interest or new wallpaper but is it true?   Is beauty purely subjective or is there some more objective way to describe beauty?  I realize these are age-old questions yet I have never conducted any formal study of aesthetics or read any book or even article by those who have, so the conclusions I have drawn are entirely my own.

  I make this disclaimer partially because I believe it very likely that others have reached same or similar conclusions as myself and if that be the case you will know that  two people conducting their own research arrived at the same conclusion.  This of course should lend considerable credibility to the theory.   

              To answer this we must first answer the question of what beauty is.  What are we talking about here anyway?  If beauty is only in the eye of the beholder then it has no subjectivity and as such cannot be described.  So we would be talking about nothing.  (I hope that’s not it because then I would be writing an article on nothing.  The publisher is sure to love that.  What is love anyway?…Oh sorry)  So for the sake of discussion let’s dismiss the idea that beauty is only in the eye of the beholder. 

                The first attribute that I see in beauty is that it does not stand alone.  It is not self-sufficient.  Beauty is not beauty for beauty’s sake.  If it was then it would be purely subjective and we dismissed that theory in the last paragraph.  Beauty points us to something else.  Things of beauty act as mirrors that bend the path of something good towards us.  Think about a smile.  Most people would agree that smiles generally are things of beauty.  Would smiles still be beautiful if instead of happiness and joy they meant sadness and sorrow?  Would not frowns be beautiful if they meant happiness and joy?  So you see that the object of beauty is beautiful because of what it reminds us of. 

                Good is a rather ambiguous term and not all beautiful things represent happiness and joy, so is there some other blanket idea that incorporates all of these?  I believe there is.  Beauty points us in the direction of perfection.  A child may smile when gets a card from his grandmother because the card made him happy but a card can only deliver temporary happiness.  Just like the smile is a reflection of temporary happiness, temporary happiness is a reflection of perfect happiness. 

                Think about the last time, you experienced perfect happiness.  If you ever experienced perfect happiness then you would still be experiencing it now because; it would not be perfect if it were temporary.  So perfection is something none have experienced yet all have an idea of because we all enjoy things of beauty.  How can this be?  How can we have a functional understanding of something that we have never experienced?  We did not get it from it being described to us because there is no one qualified to describe it.  The idea of perfection cannot have come from men.  There is no empirical or rational way to conceive of man inventing perfection.  Perfection can only have come from God.  God is by definition the most perfect being.  Flaws can be found in everything around us.  Nothing on Earth is perfect, only God is perfect. 

                So beauty points us to or reminds us of God.  It is that simple.  This is the only rational way I can think of to objectively define beauty.  An object takes on beauty when it reminds of God.  The better it reminds us of God the more beauty it possesses. 

                That is the objective part, the rest is open to interpretation.  This is where the eye of the beholder comes in to play.  Things that remind me of God do not necessarily have to remind you of God.

So what about people who do not believe in God?  Certainly they can still experience beauty, right?  Yes, they can experience beauty but they cannot understand it.  Box turtles experience rain, and are probably conscience of it but they do not understand the water cycle.  To those that do not believe in God, beauty must be superficial because they cannot see or experience what it is pointing them to.