More Swinny
I mentioned that interview with Swinburne in What Philosophers Think.
It’s based on a discussion of a paper he gave at a Congress, about God and evil. He says the usual sort of thing –
…it’s a good thing that humans should have free will, not just free will to choose between alternative television channels, but free will to choose significantly between good and bad – good and evil in the terms of the paper. But, they can’t have that unless there is the actual possibility of them bringing about evil The possibility of evil occurring unprevented is the necessary condition for them having a free choice between good and evil.
That’s the same problem we had with his discussion with Dennett. Why is it a good thing that humans should have free will? We don’t even agree that it’s a good thing (for the universe, or the planet, or other biological systems, or anyone or anything other than humans themselves, which doesn’t seem to be what he means, or surely he would have said that, instead of saying ‘objectively’) that humans exist, so why would it be a good thing that, existing, humans should have free will? Why should that be any more of a good thing than that humans should have moles, or teeth, or calf muscles? Never mind – it gets more interesting, when the discussion turns to ‘natural evil’.
Human suffering as the result of disease – very frequent, not the result of free choice, or at any rate not the result of free choice unless there are bad angels at work causing it. That is possible, but it’s not something I would wish to promote very strongly. That sort of suffering is necessary because it gives the sufferer the opportunity to either be sorry for himself or to deal with it courageously. If he didn’t suffer he wouldn’t have the opportunity to deal with his suffering in either a courageous way or in a self-pitying way. It also gives other people – friends, spouse, children etc. – the opportunity to be sympathetic, to try and help him, for showing sympathy, feeling sympathy and doing something about it or not to bother. That is to say this is the grit that makes possible the pearl of different kinds of reaction. If the world was without any natural evil and suffering we wouldn’t have the opportunity, or nearly as much opportunity, to show courage, patience and sympathy. Of course I’m not suggesting that God ought to multiply suffering ad infinitum in order to give us endless opportunity, but I do think the world would be a poorer place if we didn’t have some opportunity to show ourselves at our best in this kind of way.
Actually, that is exactly what you’re suggesting, you simp. You can’t help suggesting that, because of what you’re saying. Because look – if the suffering as a result of disease is not real suffering, if it’s trivial, if it’s a mere mild lassitude or a slight ache in the calf muscle, then courage is beside the point, it’s not needed. For the courage to be actual courage, as opposed to just dramatizing, or downright joking (like howling the place down when you bump your elbow slightly, to make the dog look puzzled), it has to be real suffering. Right? So – the worse the suffering is, the more courage is needed, and the more courageous the courage is. So, if you’re fool enough to think the courage is worth the price of the suffering, then you do indeed think the more the merrier, or ‘that God ought to multiply suffering ad infinitum‘. That’s exactly what you are saying in that revolting passage. You might as well say people should whip their children every few hours so that the children can bear it courageously and the parents can show them sympathy. It makes just that much sense.
We’ve seen this argument before. Some rabbi on Thought for the Day – I think arguing against the legal right to die, on the grounds that he wouldn’t have wanted his father to have had that option, because then he would have missed the opportunity to show his father compassion – during his suffering. So he wanted his father to suffer so that he could show him compassion – badly enough that he was glad his father wasn’t able to choose whether to suffer (and get the compassion) or not. Excuse me, but I think that’s disgusting.
Then there’s a really dreadful passage about being of use to others. ‘I brought out several examples of that, of which, of course, the most striking would be the person who dies for his country in a just war.’ Julian asks about suffering that seems to be of no use to anyone, and cites the Battle of the Somme as an example.
Well, that particular soldier’s life is also of use…someone sent him there, some general high up has taken a decision about this matter…Innumerable people, through negligence, through stirring up hatred, through not bothering, have contributed to war. It’s a great good for them that they are allowed to make big differences to things, and they can only make big differences to things if there are going to be possible victims.
That’s – beyond disgusting. That’s blood-curdling. That’s enough to make you run screaming from the room. As Julian (more politely) notes.
Swinburne had already said that his argument wouldn’t convince the committed atheist and wouldn’t make much difference to the committed believer. Reconciling God and evil is of most value to the undecided or unsure. Leaving the interview, I was unsure as to whether the very precise reconciliation Swinburne describes will have the effect of clearing the way for belief in God or making the very idea of God a more chilling one.
More chilling!
Swinburne is doing nothing other than saying what things might mean if the only given is that god exists. He doesn’t even seem to be trying to demonstrate that that given is likely. Did his parents by any chance saddle him with a long and cumbersome middle name, like “Don’tbotherlisteningtomeunlessyouareascertainasiamthatthereisagodwhomakesussufferbecauseheisgood?”
Wow. It’s so evil. I thought Christianity was all about LOVING your fellow humans as you love yourself, um … or something. How can people like Swinburne not see how amazingly evil they’re being.
I’m so confused. What would human beings be like without free will? Isn’t that like the universe “when there was nothing”? These are empty concepts, akin to the boulder god creates that he can’t lift it himself. You might as well talk about gas-free atmospheres.
And does Swinburne value the edification that suffering engenders so much that he opposes hospitals and prisons?
It is rather staggering, isn’t it. I’ve been pondering it at intervals. How nice for all those millions of young men, to die so that the generals and officials who put them there could see what a mistake they’d made. How all their parents and friends and siblings and wives and children must have been comforted by that thought – ‘Ah yes,’ they told each other, ‘that makes it all worthwhile.’
“And does Swinburne value the edification that suffering engenders so much that he opposes hospitals and prisons?”
Well he has to, doesn’t he. That’s the logic of his position. If suffering is good because it gives you a chance to show courage, then more suffering has to be better and less has to be worse, so hospitals must be a terrible mistake, and as for painkillers – !
As many have discussed, suffering endured through no personal action or fault (eg many diseases), is a major problem for, and fault in, the concept of a benevolent god.
Swinburne’s attempt to reconcile suffering and benevolence is no more convincing than any other I’ve read.
Part of the reason it falls is that god, being omniscient, MUST know how you are going to behave. So, from god’s point of view, the suffering is pointless. It doesn’t reveal anything not known.
As for inspiring others…please! Is Swinburne really saying that I had to suffer major surgery twice, so that others could be inspired (assuming that my response was of the courageous sort)?
I would rather skip the suffering and let people find some other source of inspiration!
Personally, I’d be a whole lot more inspired to be a better person if I saw more examples of lofty behavior — not more examples of suffering. It’s the idea that my fellow human being might injure or exploit me that makes me want to have a formidable defense ready, just in case.
Personally, I’d be a whole lot more inspired to be a better person if I saw more examples of lofty behavior — not more examples of suffering. It’s the idea that my fellow human being might injure or exploit me that makes me want to have a formidable defense ready, just in case.
And besides – why is courage in suffering such a valuable quality anyway? I can see why courage in helping other people is valuable, but just courage in enduring pain? Is it so terrible to find pain painful? So we’re crybabies, so what?
So – God makes us suffer so that it can hear whether we yelp or not? Gosh, in humans that’s not considered very admirable behavior. To put it mildly. ‘I’m torturing this detainee so that he can have a chance to show his courage.’
WHERE do we get such idiotic speculations as you are gathering? It seems to me that there must be good and bad thinking in the religious framework, just as there is in academic writing. The examples you allow to self-eviscerate here are just appalling.
And mostly I think they are appalling as examples of thinking. They mix woolly ideas from different frames of reference, leave worlds of assumptions untested and huge contradictions unrecognised.
Is it not just dribble?
I prefer drivel.
Of course, that’s what it is, but still those are the best arguments of the theists, such as they are.
If I invented smallpox and unleashed it on the world, I could be reasonably accused of a crime against humanity, but when God does it, this is an opportunity to show courage. And I suppose the cowardly WHO, by eradicating smallpox, has gone against God’s will in destroying his creation.
Forget the Danish cartoonists. Let’s destroy the sacrilegious WHO.
The Gnostics have a more logcal explanation for evil than this drivel: Jehovah as a particularly nasty, benighted, jealous fragment of the Godhood trapped in a realm He created in his own flawed image. The “God of This World” indeed.
(Sorry to go all theological again. :) )
‘Lo, how are the mighty fallen’ dept.
In the Guardian piece by Julian Baggini linked to on todays B&W front page, JB defines ‘apostates’ as people who “reject the religion altogether”: “hence Jews are apostates to Christians, Christians apostates to Muslims”
Apostasy is, of course, the act of rejecting the religion into which you were raised — ask Salman Rushdie, it earned him his death-sentence [in part].
People of other religions are ‘heathens’, ‘infidels’, and other unpleasant terms, but not apostates…
Tut, tut…
It is interesting that suffering is such a valuable life affirming thing to the religious believer when it is hapening to other people, but when their lovely suffering is visited down on them many suddenly have a crisis of faith – and they certainly don’t merrily accept the opportunity to show courage. You’d almost think they were a rather shortsighted and selfish lot.
People of other religions are ‘heathens’, ‘infidels’, and other unpleasant terms, but not apostates…
Thanks, Dave — I’m just bugged I didn’t notice it myself.
“WHERE do we get such idiotic speculations as you are gathering?”
The guy’s at Oxford, Chris – that’s part of why I keep asking these rude questions. He’s a Name, just as Keith Ward is. If he weren’t, he wouldn’t have been chosen to debate Dennett in Prospect. He’s not just some droner on the bus.
OB, the two sets (Oxford professors and droners on buses) aren’t mutually exclusive.
I’ve probably said this before, but worth noting that Oxford is notorious for having more theists than you can shake a stick at.
‘ the opportunity … to show courage, patience and sympathy.’
To whom are we showing these qualities? The poor bastard writhing in pain? They have other concerns than admiring our fortitude. We are all adults and I presume we have all had these opportunities. I don’t feel grateful for a single one of them. And I seriously resent being told…, fuck, I’m actually angry; that almost never happens.
Or are we showing Old Nobodaddy how well we have followed his mysterious ways?
Let us suppose that the god Swinburne proposes actually exists, that he is right. Surely it would then the duty of science to combine to initiate ‘Operation Pullman, and get the bastard.
Oh come on, roger – Oxford professors don’t need to drone on buses, they have so many other places to do it!
‘I’m actually angry; that almost never happens.’
I know, this stuff makes me angry too. (Although I can’t say that almost never happens. It almost never doesn’t happen, is more like it. But still – it does.)
“It almost never doesn’t happen”
Which is why I visit B&W so often these days-the bracing slap of righteouss anger.
So Swinburne hits on both the Free Will Theodicy and the Soul Building Theodicy — and neither one of them works very well unless you already believe in a Good God and are just looking for some excuse to keep the concept intact. Those aren’t really good grounding conditions, imo.
Doug’s point is well taken: exactly what would people look like without “free will?” Are we talking zombis, or people who fail in their plans, or what?
One popular example of people who presumably have no free will is the theist’s own concept of people in heaven. Presumably, in heaven there is no pain or suffering. It’s perfect happiness. Yet there are people — souls or whatever. If Free Will requires the ability to cause evil, and the ability to cause evil entails the presence of evil, we seem to arrive at the conclusion that there is no Free Will in heaven.
But it would seem to be a poor heaven indeed if it were only filled with the kind of mindless automata Christians think are entailed by the loss of Free Will. So if it’s valuable, they must have it. In an environment with no evil.
Well, do they not make choices? Do they only make good choices? Do they make bad choices, but God ensures nobody comes to harm?
If heaven works out — then why is it somehow absolutely necessary that there be evil in the world?
Interesting arguments, Sastra. Would the answer be that human souls in heaven are somehow “purified” to the point that they can no longer do evil by their very nature? But then, Christian theology and its popularizations tell of revolts in heaven by deluded angels-were the angels as flawed as humans are, flawed enough to choose evil? Because the fall of Lucifer occurred BEFORE the fall of Man, is my understanding?
Or, perhaps heaven is a state more akin to the Budhist/Hindu state of nirvanna, in which human individuality is subsumed into the overall universal force? Which means no individual souls, or maybe real, distinct individual conscioussness?
It’s utterly amazing that Oxford intellects are struggling with the problem of evil when that problem has a very simple solution: no all-good (in any sense of good that preserves the meaning of the word in ordinary use), all-powerful, all-knowledgeable being exists. Now, can we get on with addressing the evils of the world rather than justifying them?
Well, the rest of us can, but people who need to go on thinking the all-good being does exist will go on spinning gruesome arguments.
it would make sense to refer to the earliest christians (who were jewish) as heritics who became apostates from the point of view of the religious jews of the time. So in at least some sense of the word christianity is either a heretical jewish sect or an apostate religion
it would make sense to refer to the earliest christians (who were jewish) as heritics who became apostates from the point of view of the religious jews of the time. So in at least some sense of the word christianity is either a heretical jewish sect or an apostate religion
it would make sense to refer to the earliest christians (who were jewish) as heritics who became apostates from the point of view of the religious jews of the time. So in at least some sense of the word christianity is either a heretical jewish sect or an apostate religion
ChrisPer wrote: “WHERE do we get such idiotic speculations as you are gathering? It seems to me that there must be good and bad thinking in the religious framework, just as there is in academic writing.”
Where do we get these “idiotic speculations”? From the mouths of those speaking for religion. They are not hard to find.
Read religious views on euthenasia, for instance. For many the main basis of their anti-euthenasia stance is that it is a “sin against god”, apparently oblivous to the fact that such arguments are irrelevant to an athiest.
Matthew, triple-posting won’t save JB’s blushes, and anyway, he specifically said ‘Jews are apostates to Xians’, which makes no sense at all, even under your schema…
So suffering is an opportunity for fortitude in those who suffer and for sympathy in those who do not.
Look at the distribution of suffering in the world. Curious that god should think dark-skinned people particularly needful of fortitude, and light-skinned people particularly needful of sympathy.
Completely off-topic (or maybe not): my copy of “Why Truth Matters” is waiting for me and, if at all possible, I shall get my grubby mitts on it today. Weekend dilemma: do I break off reading the Dawkins 30th anniversary volume or try to be somewhat orderly about this?
Remaining off topic, Stewart. I ordered a copy of “Why Truth Matters” on 27 February, but Amazon.co.uk tells me the estimated delivery date is 29 Mar 2006 – 11 April 2006. Incompetent bastards!
Lucky you — I’m actually quite keen to compare WTM with Steven Goldberg’s “When Wish Replaces Thought”, which seems to address much the same subject matter.
P.S. Steven Goldberg is also the author of “Why Men Rule — A Theory of Male Dominance” and “The Inevitability of Patriarchy” — even more off-topic still, I suppose…
The President,
CC
I guess even those peadophile priests suffered too, from the guilt of their actions. And the whole of the RC faith, drowning in tears over the ghastly recent (!!!) discovery of systematic child abuse. The Pope – how he has suffered on discovering the torture and rape of children by his own footsoldiers. Undisclosed for sooooo long… Il Papa has done his time on Calvary for them, surely…
And the poor little infants ? They suffered the very, very most of course, and are therefore the bravest and in a mysterious way, closest to God. Brave infants. Saintly infants. Haloed infants. Lambs.
Yep, works for me. Gotta have suffering.
Well, I did things the lucky way. I was kind of waiting for an opportunity to pick one off a shelf and chanced to meet someone who worked in a bookstore, so I dropped in on her there two days ago, tried my luck and she said there might be a copy only a city away. Why didn’t I just order one like all the rest of you waiting? Because I have to keep away from bookstores and not make things too easy, otherwise I won’t have a cent left. I’m tempted enough as it is without leading myself there as if it weren’t even dangerous.
PM “I’ve probably said this before, but worth noting that Oxford is notorious for having more theists than you can shake a stick at.”
And more buses than you can shake a wheel brace at since deregualtion. None of them moving very fast though. Hence the Breeder/Don mutation thing. I’m calling this Theory A.
Droner/Don, I meant.
I’ll get my coat.
Do you need any help with that?
Nick,
‘?’
God will be my judge.
So it’s not in all bookstores? That’s no good! But maybe you’re in some funny off the beaten track place, Stewart…Mongolia or some such, where one wouldn’t expect to find it in all bookstores.
I’m in “funny off the beaten track” Berlin and the copy I’ve already got my fingerprints all over apparently hotfooted it over from Hamburg. I’ve read up to p.17 in one U-Bahn and two S-Bahns getting it home, but I have to go out again soon… but it’s coming with me. Already stimulated some good thoughts about other problems (well, related ones, that is). So far, congratulations (seventeen pages worth and a nice back cover).
Ah, thanks; very kind.
Yeah – I love the back cover.
Ah, I must, I just must, quote John Stuart Mill on Oxbridge:
“Unfortunately it is not in the nature of bodies constituted like the English
Universities, even when stirred up into something like mental activity, to
send forth thought of any but one description. There have been universities (those of France and Germany have at some periods been practically conducted
on this principle) which brought together into a body the most
vigorous thinkers and the ablest teachers, whatever the conclusions to which their thinking might have led them. But in the English Universities no
thought can find place, except that which can reconcile itself with orthodoxy. They are ecclesiastical institutions; and it is the essence of all churches to vow adherence to a set of opinions made up and prescribed, it matters little whether three or thirteen centuries ago. Men will some day open their eyes, and perceive how fatal a thing it is that the instruction of those who are
intended to be the guides and governors of mankind should be confided to a
collection of persons thus pledged.”
It is, of course, possible to conceive of a God-made universe in which it is not possible to actively “do evil”, but that is not this observed universe. It is, I think, if you posit the God in whom Christians believe, and accept an after-life, a good thing that people have the ability to choose between good and evil, as it makes people moral actors and, in this sense, like God.
When you have such a world, when bad things happen to people who don’t deserve such things, you will observe people doing good deeds to mitigate the bad things. This does not justify the bad things. But good deeds are good in themselves and we should all be pleased, Christians, believers and atheists alike, in those good deeds and the moral example they set.
“if you posit the God in whom Christians believe”
Yes but the trouble is Swinburne is using the argument to argue for the existence of that God, which is question-begging. We can’t posit that God, then on that basis accept Swinburne’s argument, then on that basis agree with him that the argument makes sense of God.
It is, of course, wrong to use that sort of argument to establish the existence of God. For Christians, the root of faith, which is specific to Christianity, is that Christ was raised from the dead. We know it’s impossible. So did the fist Apostles and disciples. So when they experienced it, it changed everything for them. I think it inconceivable that the apostles meant that Jesus’ message was so impprtant that he lived on through the message. If he truly died and was not resurrected, why would that have been different from what happened to John the Baptist, or any number of Jewish prophets? Being killed was not unknown as a fate for prophets, but no Jewish people proclaimed a reformed religion and a focus on the prophet in anything like the way that happened with Jesus. So something was very different. I do not expect to convince atheists that Jesus was resurrected. But I do expect them to acknowledge that something happened after the crucifixion and that this is the hinge of faith for Christians. We could be wrong. The disciples may have been deluded or deceitful or got it otherwise wrong, but they paid, in virtually every case, a very steep price for proclaiming the gospels, and it seems difficult to believe that without money or worldly as an incentive they would have died for something they knew to be a lie.
Modern Christians take on faith that the first disciples were not lying. We take comfort from the Gospels that the Jesus described there and the parables he spoke that the apostles were proclaiming a message worth proclaiming.
In essence we believe because we think we have good reason to believe.
Best wishes
“But I do expect them to acknowledge that something happened after the crucifixion”
I can do that. I think something happened both before and after the crucifixion: I think people were powerfully influenced by a charismatic (which I don’t mean in a trivial sense) man, and devastated by his execution.
“Modern Christians take on faith that the first disciples were not lying.”
I’m not sure what that means. There is no direct testimony from the first disciples – if you mean the ones contemporary with Jesus. The testimony is later – including what is written about the resurrection. It’s not eyewitness testimony. And it’s not an issue of lying; there are a number of possibilities other than lying. Hearsay, to name just one.
There is a large body of secular scholarship on all this, of course. It doesn’t on the whole say the disciples were lying, but it doesn’t take the resurrection to have been an actual event, either.
And you say modern Christians take it on faith that the disciples were not lying – but your original claim was that you think you have good rational and historical grounds for your beliefs. There is a tension there, you know…
I take it on faith – in the integrity of historians and archaeologists – that Austus lived and was alive till 14AD. Similarly for the existence of Christ and evidence from the gospels and letters that within 20 years (max, dating Paul’s letters)there was a recognisable Creed and body of belief about Jesus, including the Resurrection – whatever that was. The Gospels – apart from John which is much later – probably post the Jewish war with Titus and Vespasian- seem on internal evidence to be written closer to Jesus’s death than thought in the C19th, so we are likely to have eyewitness recollections for much written about Jesus. My reference to reason is that I am satisfied that the historical exstence of Jesus is pretty secure. That he died and roughly when (EP Sanders – The Historical Jesus- has a nice appendix on dating, which is worth a read. The book itself is a nice read and contextualises Jesus very well. He does not go beyond the crucifixion as he does not claim to understand the resurrection.)and his early impact is pretty secure historically. That the early disciples thought the resurrection experience made a huge difference is an observable fact. Thus, one can be a Christian based on these good reasons (Existence, early independent attestation, corroboration by teaching, and that there was a good reason for the disappearance of Jesus’s body)rather than say a reformed Jew or a simple agnostic.
Best wishes
No; current scholars don’t think ‘we are likely to have eyewitness recollections for much written about Jesus’ – the consensus is quite the opposite. And that ‘the early disciples thought the resurrection experience made a huge difference is an observable fact’ is also not the scholarly consensus. It’s not the scholarly consensus that Jesus’s body did disappear; that’s considered a later addition.
Funk’s Honest to Jesus is a good summary of the (fairly) recent secular scholarship.
For your entertainment:
Jesus and Mo: Tomb
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/03/07/tomb/
The Fair Haven
Samuel Butler
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6092
_
Not that it would affect in any way my opinion of any religion, but, ever since I first had a reason to ask myself what the evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus actually is, it has seemed to me remarkably unconvincing, especially when considered alongside the numerous indicators that nobody thought he had existed as a real person for the first century or two after he was supposed to have lived.
Er, about that “Jesus and Mo” comic strip: how come no one’s rioting about it? Is getting something flashed around the Middle East by an imam from Denmark the only way to get things noticed? If I were an advertiser, I’d try to pick up on that trick. Who knows, maybe it’ll all turn out to have been a spectacularly successful ad campaign and we’ll soon find out for what product.
Bacon?
Thanks, Adam; that is indeed entertaining. ‘That’s like saying the yellow brick road is evidence for the existence of the Wizard of Oz.’ Haw!
Have we finally found a cartoon OB likes?
Tsssssssss
I love cartoons. Cartoons taught me to read. Cartoons are a great art form.
Must’ve been someone else I remember saying she didn’t get it. Good thing it wasn’t nuns that taught you to read. Otherwise you might think they were a great art form.
Nuh uh. Notice I didn’t say cartoons taught me to read therefore they are a great art form. Those are two separate sentences, indicating two separate thoughts.
Mind you, those wimples are awfully pretty…