Vexing Links (5/25/2015)

Some recent links of note:

• Robin Smith has recently updated the SEP article on Aristotle’s Logic
• Tuomas Tahko updates an entry at the SEP on Ontological Dependence originally authored by the late great E.J. Lowe
• Peter Adamson’s History of Philosophy without any Gaps has a new podcast episode  on 13th century Logic
• Massimo Pigliucci took the New Atheists to the woodshed (almost feel sorry for them)
• Jeffery Jay Lowder notes that David Wood took John Loftus to the woodshed on the question “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?” (I agree with Lowder and couldn’t help but get the impression that Loftus knew he had been whipped by the end of the debate—granting that he failed to address 1 Cor 15)
• Messianic Drew constructs a similar argument for God from Fitch’s paradox as I did previously on this blog.  One difference is that I use the BCF (Big Conjunctive Fact) to explicitly argue for an omniscient mind (which isn’t a big slice of God, but certainly troubling for naturalism)
• Alex Pruss as a nice neat argument for God from life (I list biogenesis as evidence that supports theism, though that is always subject to new discoveries)
• Speaking of which, a new theory of abiogenesis is being lauded by internet atheists as putting God on the ropes (Should theists be sweating? It might be worth noting that the scientist who has devised the theory, Dr. England, is an observant Jew who prays to God three times a day.  Classical theists don’t require that the creation of life to be a miraculous intervention, but the general order of nature points to a living source of creation)
• I recently found an interesting clip of evolutionary biologist, Ken Miller (who testified against ID in the Dover case) defend Aquinas’s fifth way (though the fifth way is a teleological argument, it is not the same as the sorts of arguments ID theorists put forward, as Ed Feser likes to point out)
• Inspiring Philosophy has a great video response to the question of whether the Trinity is a pagan concept
• Bill Vallicella and Dale Tuggy are discussing God’s relationship to being (this is the latest from Vallicella, but it all started from this interview on Tuggy’s superb Trinities podcast)
• Lastly, and most importantly, if you are wondering which superhero would win in a one-on-one battle, wonder no more

Bernstein/Ahmed debate on Unbelievable?

Unbelievable? hosted a great debate between C’Zar Bernstein and Arif Ahmed on the Argument from Consciousness for God’s existence: listen here.

A rough outline for Bernstein’s argument was something like:
1. There are non-physical minds.
2. The explanation for (1) is either personal or natural.
3. The explanation is not natural.
4. Therefore, the explanation is personal.

Fleshed out, Bernstein defended an evidential argument, where consciousness doesn’t logically entail the God of classical theism, but that consciousness provides evidential support for classical theism. Most of the debate came down to the first premise, which Bernstein defended by way of the modal argument for the soul.

Ahmed focuses on an eliminativist/Humean response and basically just denied there were persons, and fell back on the claim that we should really only admit into our ontology whatever is strictly needed for science (so no need to talk about conscious persons or moral properties).  A good deal of the discussion focused on whether we have good reason to think persons exist, and I think Bernstein got the better of Ahmed in the end (pointing out how Ahmed couldn’t even really talk about pain without referencing his own awareness of it).  However, this meant that little time was focused on showing why consciousness is good evidence in support of classical theism.  Indeed, I agree with Bernstein that it is good evidence.  However, I think more needs to be said for why this is so.

It’s worth a listen, that is for sure.

A Debate on HEE and the Skeptical Argument against Rationality

Recently, I’ve had a little debate on Facebook that has prompted my interlocutor to take to his own blog in order to clarify his views and rebut my argument. Unfortunately, in the process, I believe my own position has been misrepresented, so I thought I would discuss some of the issues here and respond to some of his claims.

Essentially, my interlocutor fails to understand why Hume’s skeptical argument against rationalism is problematic for his particular epistemology.  In fact, he thinks the argument can be ignored precisely because it leads to untoward consequences.  And he thinks that I am guilty of special pleading because I do not think this problem affects my own epistemology. But before I respond to these issues, a little background on the debate is needed.

Peter Hurford v. cl on Needless Suffering, cl’s First

I’ve agreed to be a judge for a debate between Peter Hurford, of Greatplay.net, and cl, of The Warfare Is Mental. My analysis of Peter’s opening speech can be found here.

I’ve had a range of reactions to cl’s first round rebuttal.  Right at the outset I was shocked by the early concession that needless suffering exists. Cl has theological motivations for this move, but it is unclear to me whether cl is conceding to the same definition Peter put forth. I also found that this debate took an unexpected turn. That is, I did not expect cl to address the Black Death as a moral issue. I found this move quite ingenious. Nonetheless, I am confused by the fact that cl argues, correctly in my opinion, that Peter is arguing from ignorance, yet cl does not use this point as a defeater for specific theodicies.  The Free Will argument, and the Natural Law argument were not specifically addressed in this rebuttal. I realize that cl had a monumental task to address all of Peter’s arguments, but I think cl could have used the argument from ignorance defense as a quick response.  Otherwise, this is a fascinating counter-punch to Peter’s 1000-hand slap.

 

My commentary is recorded below. Cl’s rebuttal is in block quotes, my comments are in red.

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.

Cl agrees with Peter that needless suffering exists, so the issue rests on whether or not needless suffering is inconsistent with the existence of the God of Abraham.  I’m not completely clear on whether cl agrees with Peter’s definition, especially in light of the comment that “the highest possible good had already obtained”.  I think cl may have the felix cupla doctrine in mind, though a clarification is in order here.  Does this suggest that all suffering is necessary by Peter’s definition, insofar as any bit of suffering is sufficient to necessitate Christ’s redeeming act?

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.

Cl appears to be correct on this point.  The God of Abraham consistently commands tithing and care for the poor, the widow, and the orphan.  The alleviation of suffering does not obstruct divine justice, but is a part of it.  Cl does not precisely explain where Peter’s logic breaks down though, which would be helpful. This addresses a point raised in the introduction and conclusion of Peter’s piece.  (3 points)

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.

Cl argues by analogy that Peter’s argument is informally fallacious.  This point is really directed to the burden of proof that lies at the center of the debate (arguing from ignorance essentially is an attempt to shift the burden of proof).  Cl centers on the issue of who has the obligation to identify a higher good, or the logical necessity by which some suffering might arise.  This is odd since cl appears to have conceded the point that needless suffering does exist and is Biblical.  But this point seems to be that we cannot know if suffering is necessary or needless.  I tend to agree with cl that if the distinction between “needless suffering” and “necessary suffering” involves whether there is a logical possibility of bringing about associated higher goods without that suffering, then the burden falls on the person making the claim to prove this modal point. (3 points)

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?

For an analogy to be successfully rebutted, a relevant difference must be found.  Cl has achieved this.  (3 points)

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.

Here cl offers a good possible higher good for the Bubonic plague.  The issue, of course is whether it meets Peter’s definition of necessary suffering.  Cl anticipates Peter’s response and insists that it is ad hoc.  This point needs to be developed further.  I think cl is saying that while Peter might be able to argue for alternative that he personally finds more desirable, he cannot show that they are more desirable simpliciter.  This could be spelled out more clearly. (2 points)

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?

Cl seems to be doing two things here that may be working at cross purposes.  Cl is engaging in Peter’s demand to provide a logically possible reason to think the suffering is not needless  But earlier Cl says that it is Peter’s responsibility to prove that it is needless rather than necessary.

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?

This point may require a bit more development.  God has suffering in time, but it is not clear that suffering was necessary for God to possess his character. (1 point)

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.

Here I think cl is hitting on my worry about Peter’s argument.  By arguing that each theodicy individually does not explain all varieties of suffering, we cannot conclude that all of the theodicies taken together will not explain all varieties of suffering (composition).  The question, then, is whether cl has a theodicy for every type of suffering.  Up to this point, it does not seem that cl has been able to “defang” the problem of animal suffering.  Whether it is cl’s burden at all is another question.  Nonetheless, if cl is going to engage these theodicies, it seems that cl has accepted the burden. 

Same with Theodicy #5. Peter writes,

…God could have made something meaningful instead that did not involve suffering…

God did. We ruined it.

Cl is defending a Biblical God.  However pithy this point is, I think it is an important one.  The question on the table is whether suffering is incompatible with the Abrahamic God.  Presumably this God is described in scripture, so Peter must explain why suffering is incompatible with the God described in scripture. (1 point)

…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.

A possible explanation, but I am not sure if it is emotionally satisfying.  Again, it is not clear whether cl is accepting the burden, or shifting it.  Here it looks like cl does not feel compelled to offer a reason.

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.

I must admit that I did not anticipate this move.  One wonders whether cl is arguing that all cleanliness laws are still in effect.  Nonetheless, cl has the backing of scripture.  Certain it is likely that the bubonic plague would have been mitigated had hygiene been more of a priority.  Interestingly enough, this point does not even require that 14^th century humans would understand the relationship between hygiene and disease.  They need only understand the virtue and godliness of cleanliness and, as a side effect, they would have been better off.

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]

This is by far the most thoroughly developed argument of the debate.  Cl makes direct connections between God’s commands, and the 14^th century violations of those commands.  As a thorough inductive argument that makes use of historical sources, cl certainly merits full points for this argument (3 points).

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.

I would say that this nearly rebuts one of Peter’s primary examples of needless suffering.  By making the Black Death a moral issue, where God’s commands were violated, a free will defense becomes all the more plausible, and necessary.  Of course, we still must find out whether the free-will defense is still on the table, and it has yet to be addressed in this debate by cl.  I think it is relevant here.

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?

Cl’s final move here is a nice attempt at an early KO.  I am very much interested to see how Peter will respond.  Cl claims to have met Peter’s direct challenge to the point of even using Peter’s own words to prove that God exists.

As I mentioned in my previous commentary, Peter unleashed several arguments–perhaps more than any one mere mortal could handle.

 Overall, cl is able to clash with several of Peter’s arguments, and has taken large strides to address one of Peter’s primary examples.  I still await cl’s response to the problem of nonhuman animal suffering, and birth defects. 

There were a few hiccups here and there.  A major weak point occurred in cl’s response to the 4^th theodicy.  The theodicy claims that suffering is necessary to build personal/moral character.  Peter pointed out that it was not necessary for God.  Cl suggests that it might very well be necessary, since God did suffer.  Again, God’s suffering occurred once God entered into creation, so I think a bit more is needed there.

Cl hits the maximum amount of points, i.e. 12.  Although cl skirts close to the word limit at 1517, no points are deducted, since there is a 50 word leeway.  Two theodicies were not addressed, namely the free will theodicy, and natural law.  I think the free will theodicy should not have been ignored in light of the moral issues raised by the Black Death.  Thus, I deduct 2 points from the total score.  Cl earns 10 points this round from me.

Peter Hurford v. cl on Needless Suffering, Peter’s First

I’ve agreed to be a judge for a debate between Peter Hurford, of Greatplay.net, and cl, of The Warfare Is Mental.

Peter’s first speech went up on Valentine’s Day, and I’ve had some time to digest the contents.  As a judge, I’m trying to walk a line of providing substantive commentary and transparency in my assessment while not providing fodder to be used by th e opponent.  Consequently, my commentary may, at times, involve some hand-waving in the direction of my thinking without being explicit.

Peter’s complete first speech can be found here and a complete index of the debate is found here.

The debate topic is on whether needless suffering exists, and whether its existence duly undermines belief in the traditional Abrahamic God.  Peter is arguing in the affirmative on both counts. I will providing running commentary in my assessment.  My comments will appear in red.  For those of you who want to cut to the chase, Peter presented several arguments of varying degrees of strength.  I think there were some issues of development, and the occasional  missed-step, but they were made up by the volume of his examples. It is for this reason that I award Peter the maximum of points possible this round, i.e. 12 points.

Now onto the specifics. . .

Peter writes:

Hello. I am Peter Hurford, I am the author of Greatplay.net and I am an atheist. I am here because I am involved in a debate with Cl, the author of The Warfare is Mental and somewhat of a Christian theist. While I think there are many reasons to not believe in various gods and many additional reasons to not believe in specifically benevolent gods, we are here to talk about only one part of one issue: the existence of needless suffering.

What is Needless Suffering?

What is this needless suffering that I claim exists? Needless suffering is also called unnecessary suffering, gratuitous suffering, or just plain evil. Put simply, needless suffering is anything that causes pain to an entity capable of feeling it and is not logically required in order to realize a higher benefit for that entity or other entities. Should this needless suffering exist, we as a collective society are worse off, and could be better off by eliminating it.

Commentary: Generally, I would say that this is a clear definition of needless suffering.  Much of the debate will hinge on this definition, as it will dictate the kind of response cl will have to provide.  An important feature, which Peter will point out later, is that needless suffering is “not logically required” in order to realize a higher benefit.  This is an important caveat, and I think it was good of Peter to flag it himself.  I do recommend caution where Peter suggests that needless suffering is synonymous with “just plain evil”, however.  This begs moral implications into the debate, so I want to see this worked out and not just defined into “needless suffering”.

Furthermore, should no needless suffering exist, we are in the best of all possible worlds and any attempt to remove suffering would make us worse off because we would lose the associated outweighing benefit and decreasing the net benefit to all people.

The argument here suggests that the absence of needless suffering is a sufficient condition for this being the best of all possible worlds. I suggest that this is backwards.  I think Peter intends to hold that this be the best of all possible worlds, no needless suffering would exist.  The difference is, of course, that among the possible worlds where no needless suffering exists, other positive attributes may yet exist by which one particular world is deemed the best, viz. a world with the least amount of necessary suffering.  So if Peter intends to defend an argument that cl’s world-view implies that we ought not to remove suffering, his first premise appears to be false.  If we convert the first premise, then it still may be the case that we ought to remove suffering, because the best possible world might also contain the least amount of suffering simplicter.  This issue arises again when Peter address the argument from ignorance.

As it stands, this argument is valid, though there is little defense for soundness, and in fact one premise appears to be false prime facie and so needs a more development.  (1 point)

What would be an example of necessary suffering? Consider the pain of surgery and recovery – this involves a lot of suffering, but it is still in our best interest to take this suffering on because it would allow us to avoid the pain that a debilitating disease might give us later on.This is the general logic of necessary suffering – however, I’d argue that this pain isn’t actually necessary because we can attain this higher, either by God omnipotently removing the disease or God preventing us from having the disease in the first place. This is why the “logically required” part is so important, for God can often get the higher benefit just by willing it.

Peter’s point is that what qualifies as necessary or needless suffering is relative to the capacity of the agents involved.  If an omnipotent agent, like God, exists, then the distinction is made on the basis of logical possibility, since logical possibility is the only limit placed on God’s capacity.  Peter’s set up is very helpful and clear.

Why Does Needless Suffering Matter?

Why does this matter? If we make two relatively non-controversial assumptions: (1) theism is about the existence of a single benevolent, omnipotent god and (2) a benevolent god would have no reason to allow needless suffering; the existence of needless suffering would be strong indication that theism is false. This is called the Problem of Evil, even though the debate isn’t about evil actions per se, but rather needless suffering as a whole.

These assumptions do appear to be non-controversial.  The first is a standard bare-bone conception of theism.  The second assumption appears to be correct analytically.  That is, if God had a reason to allow some bit of suffering, then it would not be needless.  Then again, it might seem that God might be unaware of some possible way to achieve a higher good, but still will some bit of suffering for that higher good.  In such a case, God might have a reason, though the evil is still needless, because God did not consider every possible alternative.  A solution to this might be to appeal to God’s omniscience, which is an attribute typically ascribed to God.  I suggest this only as a help, and because I think it is immaterial to the overall debate.  Peter might be assuming that omniscience is implied by omnipotence, but I think this should be made explicit.

However, Cl and I agreed that we will only be debating the existence of needless suffering, and not debating either of these two assumptions. If you want to see a comprehensive defense of these two assumptions, as well as additional justifications for atheism, please look to my website. For now on, I continue with the intent just to defend the proposition that needless suffering exists as I’ve defined it.

Why Think that Needless Suffering Exists?

While the pains of surgery that I mentioned before are an example of needless suffering, especially in the third-world where they are routinely done without anesthetic, I’d like to focus on three horrors that I find especially clear and compelling: (A) babies that suffer intensely and then die from birth defects, (B) nonhuman animals that suffer intensely in the wild and within our factory farms, and (C) the Bubonic Plague that killed over 25 million people in the fourteenth century.What makes these three examples instances of needless suffering? Namely that no higher benefit can be identified that would logically require any of these examples. Let me briefly consider some potential benefits (called theodicies) that Cl or others might argue, and explain why they are inadequate:

Up to this point, Peter has been framing the debate through definitions and examples.  It is important to note how he has framed this debate, in understanding how I am evaluating him.  Fundamentally, the way Peter has framed this debate has implications with regard to the burden of proof.  Peter is challenging his opponent to explain how these are NOT examples of needless suffering.   The issue is complicated because he claims that certain classes of suffering justification on the basis that they are logically required for a higher benefit.  For me, the whole question of onus hinges on the definitions Peter uses. This is a point Peter addresses more specifically in his conclusion.

Theodicy #1: Free Will
The idea that suffering is necessary for Free Will is one of the most famous defenses against the Problem of Evil. However…

• The Free Will Defense fails because only a compatibilist theory of free will makes sense – God could have easily created people that had genuine free choice yet never chose rephrensible actions, as this is often the kind of free will that God seems to have himself, or the kind of free will of people residing in Heaven.
• But I need not draw Cl into a long debate over the nature of free will, since it is quite clear that there is no free will involved in any of the examples I mentioned.

Peter presents two arguments against the free will defense.  The first is that the Free Will defense depends upon incompatibilist theories of free will.  Peter says that such theories because only compatiblist versions make sense.  We must conclude that the Free Will defense fails.  This is a valid argument, but the justification needs some attention.  He writes that God could have created genuinely free people that never perform reprehensible actions, but it is not clear why this shows incompatiblism nonsensical, but perhaps I am missing the point.  I award 1 point for validity here and 1 points for soundness.  I think that Peter could have spelled this out more clearly.  (2 points total).

Peter’s second point is that a Free Will defense has been pre-empted on the basis of the fact that his examples lack the involvement of free will.  Factory farming may be relevant here though (1 points).

Theodicy #2: Punishment of Sin
Second, another very commonly given reason that suffering is necessary is because God needs to use it to punish sin, and sin must be punished in order for there to be less of it, and less sin is a higher benefit.

• Nonhuman animals don’t have original sin, let alone can make moral decisions capable of being sensibly punished.
• Babies with original sin don’t need to be punished for the original sin because they have not made any conscious choice to reject God or act malevolently.
• Given how uncorrelated sinful behavior is with suffering, this theodicy is highly implausible.  Those who suffered through the Bubonic Plague were not especially more sinful than those today who have the advantages of modern medicine.

Peter argues that punishment of sin cannot be a higher benefit to explain the necessity of suffering because nonhuman animals don’t have original sin and are nonmoral, i.e. (B).  In other words, this explanation is not sufficient to explain the existence of all necessary suffering, though it might explain some.  This is similar to Peter’s previous point, that his examples don’t depend on Free Will.  This argument only leads to the conclusion that punishment of sin is insufficient to account for all types of suffering. Nonetheless, Peter makes a fair point here.  He then extends the point to all three varieties of examples, arguing that babies may have original sin, but they do not merit punishment.  Furthermore, it seems that many by sin rise, and many by virtue fall, i.e. suffering does not appear to be correlated to punishment.  Again, these are fair points, though Peter could have developed his examples in further detail.  (3 points).

Theodicy #3: Need for Natural Law
Third and even more generally, yet another theodicy says that birth defects and the suffering of nonhuman animals at the hands of natural disasters is necessary to have the kind of consistent physics needed for our world.

• There’s no reason why an omnipotent God couldn’t make a different world that has consistent physics yet does not contain these examples, or why he couldn’t just maintain such a world with divine will.
• None of the examples I mentioned are remotely fundamental to physics – the world could still operate just fine without the Bubonic Plague, birth defects, and/or nonhuman animal suffering.

As this stands, I accept Peter’s possibility, that God could have created a different set of physical laws so that such examples do not exist.  However, it does seem that Peter needs to tie this back to his initial contention of needless suffering as a variety of pain that is not logically necessary to bring about a higher benefit, since natural laws are not necessarily the higher benefits in question, but the varieties of phenomena that follow from these ordered natural laws, e.g. the ability to develop science or to act in the world in meaningful ways.  Peter’s argument here is only that there could be another set of laws where his examples of suffering would not come about, but it seems he must also explain why such a world would retain all the benefits of this world, at the very least. (1 point) 

Peter then argues that none of the examples he lists necessarily follow from or are fundamental to the physics of this world.  This suggests that such things are accidents of history rather than determined from the physical laws of nature.  I would like to see Peter develop this point a bit further, especially in light of his contention that the only coherent view of free-will is compatiblism. Again, this argument needs to be developed further. (1 point)

Theodicy #4: Drawing Closer to God / Lessons Learned / Building Virtue
Fourth, a very common theodicy is referred to as soul-making, which has typically been three different things – God using suffering to draw people closer to him, using suffering to teach lessons, or using suffering to build people’s character.

• All three of these seemingly different defenses can be defeated in the same way – God could have instilled any of these lessons, love for God, or character from birth.
• 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.
• None of these elements of soul-making are at all relevant to nonhuman animals or those who die too young, since they are incapable of any of these three things.

Peter defends the view that virtues, character, lessons, and the drive to become closer to God could have been instantly willed into a creature without the need for obstacles and suffering, i.e. it is logically possible for God to will such things as part of our character, so it is logically possible to avoid this suffering while attaining the higher benefits.   If the matter is logical possibility, then it would be helpful to know precisely what is meant by virtue, character, and love.

A stronger argument is that God is, by nature, all of these things yet has not suffered.  So if God is logically possible, then suffering is not necessary for knowledge, virtue, love, etc.  There is an implicit enthymemic argument here, which does validly lead to the conclusion that it is not logically impossible for a loving, wise, and virtuous being to exist without suffering.  The key question will be whether such a being can be created.

Peter claims that there is no relevance between soul-building and nonhuman animals, since they cannot develop their moral character.  To full answer the question of relevance to nonhuman animals, we must consider whether their suffering may be necessary for human moral development.  Taken separately, each point could be developed further, but as  cumulative case, Peter does a good job of both defending his examples and arguing against the logical necessity of suffering for soul-making ( 3 points).

Theodicy #5: The Need for Genuine Human Accomplishment
Fifth, it is argued that suffering is necessary to give humans things to do that make a meaningful impact, and nothing is more meaningful than alleviating the suffering of others.

• This response fails because God could have made something meaningful instead that did not involve suffering – given that our purpose and drive for meaning is allegedly God-given in the first place.
• All of the examples I mentioned are so structural and complicated that humanity has no hope of solving these problems for thousands of years – removing the suffering of nonhuman animals and removing birth defects would require an unfathomable amount of re-engineering biology.
• We often don’t have even the slightest chance of ameliorating the suffering, even if the issue is complicated. 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.
• Unless Heaven is undesirable, there still should be genuine human accomplishment there, despite there being no needless suffering.

Peter argues that if meaning is God-given, then it is arbitrary and need not be tied to accomplishments pertaining to suffering.  It would be helpful to draw out why we must think that God could choose to do otherwise than he did.

Peter also raises a point that these issues are not going to be quickly or easily resolved.  Perhaps they will never be solved.  A question might be raised as to what he means by “accomplishment” and why he connects it with the idea of complete resolution.  His first two points seem to depend upon such a connection.  But is caring for the dying, at the risk of one’s own life, a genuine human accomplishment even if it does not entirely alleviate suffering?

Peter  argues that heaven is desirable only if there are human accomplishments, but there is not supposed to be suffering in heaven.  But I think Peter may have made an invalid move here.  He said that the alleviation of suffering is the most meaningful human accomplishment, not the only form of human accomplishment.  It might be that heaven contains less meaningful forms of accomplishment, but is more desirable for other reasons.  I think there are many important questions.  I would award 2 points for the first two bullet points, but I think the last point is a bit of a non sequitur (2 points).

Theodicy #6: The Benefits of Heaven
Sixth and last, it is suggested that all this suffering is inconsequential because all will be corrected in Heaven.

• This is controversial however, because it is undecided theologically whether babies who die from birth defects or nonhuman animals actually go to Heaven.
• Heaven does not make the suffering any more needless now even if Heaven is compensation, because Heaven could still be given without the suffering. It’s the equivalent of punching someone in the face and then giving them $1000.

Peter notes that it is undecided as to whether babies and nonhuman animals will go to heaven, and so their suffering may not be made inconsequential in light of this fact. This does seem to be an open theological question, so it seems that (A) and (B) cannot be explained away with such an appeal (2 points).

Peter also points out that this view suggests that heaven is, in some way, compensation for suffering.  I understood this theodicy a little differently though, so I am a bit confused by this point.  If heaven is understood as compensation for suffering, then I would agree with Peter that it does not give a reason for suffering.  But if merited grace is gained through suffering and the alleviation of suffering, then heaven made possible.  I am not sure that Peter is attacking the strongest version of this argument, so it seems to me that he inadequately defends (C) by a straw man of salvation as merited compensation. (0 point).

Now, I have certainly not addressed every potential benefit that might be argued for suffering in general, or for these particular instances. However, if Cl or someone else has a different higher benefit that would logically require these three examples, I’d be happy to consider it in my rejoinder.

An Argument from Ignorance?

Now that all the common theodicies are dispensed with, I’d like to turn to a different kind of reply – that we don’t need any specific theodicy because God simply could have an unknown purpose for allowing suffering. Cl charges me with unfairly reasoning from “I can’t see a higher benefit from this suffering” to “There is no higher benefit to this suffering”, which is an argument from ignorance.How do we know that reindeer cannot fly? Sure, we’ve investigated reindeer and not found any biological wings, helicopter blades, or jetpacks – but maybe they defy gravity through some undiscovered means. Sure, we’ve never observed a flying reindeer and observed millions of reindeer that don’t fly their entire lives, but this could just mean reindeer are holding out on us. Is this an argument from ignorance? Are we unfairly reasoning from “I can’t see a reason why reindeer are incapable of flight” to “Reindeer cannot fly”?No – claims like reindeer being incapable of flight are not absolute, but rather provisional based on the analysis of tons of evidence. Of course there’s a remote possibility that we might be mistaken, but this doesn’t prevent us from claiming the knowledge of reindeer being incapable of flight based on an evidential inference.We can accept the existence of needless suffering provisionally, based on there being no actual reason for an unknown purpose. This is why the Problem of Evil I argue is evidential, not logical. While I do accept the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of needless suffering, it is unreasonable to demand I give proof in the mathematical sense – rather, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof enough.

Here Peter is using an argument from analogy to show that he has not committed the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.  He draws on our experience with reindeer, which leads us to the inductive conclusion that all reindeer are flightless.  This is a generalization based upon experiential data, though it arrives at a negative attribute.  This is to be contrasted Peter’s own argument, that we cannot seem to observe any higher purpose for certain forms of suffering, which leads to the conclusion that certain forms of suffering lack a higher purpose.  I can see the similarity that Peter is trying to draw, but I think there is a relevant difference, which I can only hand-wave towards.  Generally speaking, I think Peter’s definition of needless suffering places a stronger burden than mere inductive enumeration  (2 points).

Secondly, How do we really know that rape and murder is bad? Certainly there could be some higher benefit that rape and murder play in our society and we actually could be making the world worse off by banning rape and murder. If we were to worry about these exceedingly unlikely chances that the suffering we observe is actually necessary for a higher benefit, there is no way we could reason morally that we ought to actually stop raping and murdering.It is special pleading to suggest that we should only question some instances of suffering (like my examples), and not question other instances of suffering (like rape and murder).

Again, Peter seems to be appealing to an analogy.  this time it is between what we humans would permit in our society as needless and what is needless on a cosmic scale.  It seems to me that Peter has laid out some relevant differences in his definition of God that need to be addressed if this comparison is to be strengthened (1 point).

Concluding Challenge

For these reasons, I conclude that needless suffering exists, and I challenge Cl to provide the higher benefit that logically requires the three examples I gave of (A) babies that suffer intensely and then die from birth defects, (B) nonhuman animals that suffer intensely in the wild and within our factory farms, and (C) the Bubonic Plague that killed over 25 million people in the fourteenth century.Secondly, if these three examples aren’t needless, I don’t know what is. Thus I would like to also challenge Cl to explain what suffering would have to look like to be considered needless by Cl. I am honored to take place in this debate and I look forward to Cl’s rebuttal.

My overall estimation is that Peter has presented a strong case for his side.  He has accomplished this through clearly defining the terms of the debate, framing the question of the debate to put a heavier burden on cl (we will have to see if cl can reasonably argue for a shift of this burden back  on Peter), and providing several lines of argumentation.  Admittedly, the arguments were of varying degrees of strength with the strongest, in my estimation, being the argument against the theodicy from punishment of sin, and against the soul making theodicy.  Peter tended to avoid deductive syllogism, opting for a more cumulative case approach, which has advantages and disadvantages.  We will see if cl can capitalize on this, or be bogged down with the details!

Peter tackled quite a few arguments in this opening round, so I would say that some were left under-developed.  I hope to see him clarify some of these issues in subsequent rounds, e.g. whether his position on natural law, and the contingencies that arise from it, is consistent with his stance as a determinist. 

Peter has racked up the maximum amount of points in this round of 12.  No formal fallacies were committed. Since this is the first speech, points cannot be deducted for failure to address a previous argument.

The Ultimate Concession?

Sadly, another atheist has decided not to debate Dr. William Lane Craig on the question of God’s existence.  In preparation for her debate with Craig, Polly Toynbee began to study some of his previous debates.  Soon after, she decided that she did not want to go through with the engagement scheduled for this October.  Hopefully there will be more information  as to why Toynbee backed out.   One wonders what it was about Craig’s previous debates that led Toynbee to her decision to back out two months before the event.

From Ed Thornton, August 12, 2011. “Atheists Decline Oxford Debate on God”, Church Times (H/T UnbelievableJB):

ATHEIST philosophers are being accused of “running shy” of debating with a Christian philosopher from the United States who is to tour the UK in the autumn to argue that faith is rational.

Polly Toynbee, the Guardian columnist and president of the British Humanist Association, had agreed to debate the existence of God with the Research Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology, California, Dr William Lane Craig, at Westminster Central Hall in October, during Professor Craig’s “Reasonable Faith” tour. Earlier this month, however, Ms Toynbee said that she would not be taking part in the event. “I hadn’t realised the nature of Mr Lane Craig’s debating style, and, having now looked at his previous per­formances, this is not my kind of forum.” Professor Craig said: “These are academic forums, where one con­centrates on the arguments and counter-arguments, the truth of the premises in those arguments and objections to them, and not on personality or ad hominem attacks.” Professor Craig has previously debated with atheist philosophers such as Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, who described Professor Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”. The humanist philosopher Pro­fessor A. C. Grayling also refused to debate with Professor Craig, and denied ever having done so, despite the debate between the two on the problem of evil at the Oxford Union in 2005. Professor Grayling later said: “I was wrong about debating [with] Lane Craig — but Lane Craig is wrong about everything else in the universe; so I guess I don’t do too badly in the deal.” The director of Professor Craig’s tour, Peter May, said: “If Craig is ‘wrong about everything else in the universe’ and his arguments for the existence of God are so easy to refute, it is hard to see why the leading atheist voices in the country are running shy of having a debate with him. “Rather than hurling ad hom­inem attacks on Craig from their bunkers, it would be good to see these figures come forward to rationally defend the atheism they publicly espouse.” Professor Craig is scheduled to debate with the atheist former Pro­fessor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford, Dr Peter Atkins, at the Uni­versity of Manchester; and with another atheist, the Professor of Philosophy at Hertford College, Oxford University, Peter Millican, at the University of Birmingham. Professor Richard Dawkins has been invited to debate with Professor Craig in Oxford, on 25 October. If Professor Dawkins refuses, the organisers say that Professor Craig “will lecture on the weakness of Dawkins’s argu­ments in his book The God Delusion”. The organisers of the tour say that they are attempting to find another atheist to debate with Professor Craig in London, instead of Ms Toynbee.

Many atheists and theists agree that William Lane Craig is among the greatest Christian apologists and debaters of our generation.  He has effectively won nearly every debate with just a few exceptions. Just listen to a few of his debates and you will soon discover that Craig is impeccably organized, methodical, and focused like a laser.  He rarely lets an argument go unchallenged, while his opponent often offer only superficial responses to Craig’s syllogisms.  So if the “New Atheists” no longer will engage with Craig, are they making some kind of concession? We will have to see if other “New Atheists” will follow in the footsteps of Dawkins and Toynbee.  In the meantime, I look forward to the Atkins and Millican debates when they become available.  I hope to write up a review of them, if they don’t back out too.

On a lighter note:

[Update 8/16/2011]  Stephen Law has stepped up to the plate and will debate William Lane Craig!  Hats off to Law for having the courage and conviction that Dawkins, Grayling, and Toynbee seem to lack.