Design

[Bradski]

We are on a roll. You are spot on.

Still spot on. Add that His program has a module that always converts the “dark and horrendous” to the “bright and beautiful.” Just stay tuned.

I should quit while I’m in front. Whaddya think…? Except - I just need to take this to the next logical conclusion. Well, logical for me, that is.

I enjoy learning about what people think and how and why they feel about certain things in the way that they do. And I know as a cast iron, rock solid, 24 carat, undeniable fact of life that people have a tendency to believe what they want to believe. So they think their child is the smartest and prettiest and their husband is not cheating on them and the policies of the party they vote for are worth supporting and their Dad is going to get better and their team was the better side despite losing and darn it, America IS the best country in the world. Fake news is only fake news if it’s something you’d rather not believe.

And we don’t want to die. And we need something to comfort us in times of loss. And we need to know that there is justice in an unjust world. We need someone to care in an uncaring world and someone to love us when we feel unloved. And hey, I know where I can get all the boxes ticked.

And if you look at the world as it really is, as it always has been for the vast majority of people who have ever lived, then you can see why people need religion. You can see why it is the default position for almost everyone who has ever existed.

But…the horrors and the pain, the lack of justice, the unfairness of life itself is, according to the conclusion of this thread, all God’s work. He has designed it this way. There is nothing that is not under His control. So if your kid dies of leukaemia, then that is part of the plan. If your sister gets cancer, then that is His plan. If your wife gets raped and murdered, then He has not simply allowed that to happen to ensure free will, it is part of The Plan. There is no way to get around this.

And this doesn’t gel with what most religious people tell me. That God is a loving God. That He cares about us. Well, I know we can’t know the mind of God and who knows what the Ultimate Plan could be, but being mere mortals, we can only go with what we’ve got. We can only call it as we see it. Otherwise…well, we’re simply hoping that there is a happy ending. I guess that this is where faith comes in. But I don’t see it as faith. It’s called that, but it’s just a natural need to hope that someone loves us and that we’ll see Mum and Dad again etc.

Me? Calling it exactly as I see it, I see an uncaring deity at best. At worst…well, maybe I’ll skip on putting that into words. Suffice to say that the Big Guy doesn’t come out of it looking too good in Bradski’s opinion. And if He does exist and he’s reading this over my shoulder as I type it (and He’d know what I could have typed), then I’d like to imagine that He’s thinking: ‘Well he’s wrong. But I can see his point’.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Whoa, back up there buddy . There’s a huge moral difference between a designer who chooses to design biological weapons and a designer who chooses not to design biological weapons. A moral gulf, as wide as the east is from the west.

If God chose to design those worms then He designed them for a purpose. Our moral duty is not to stop them, for then we would be working against His divine plan to lovingly blind His children. Whether He designed his worms to blind kids for the good of their souls, or in the name of the greater good, we must on no account give in to temptations of mercy and frustrate His purpose by stopping them. Paul got it badly wrong, God never wrote the requirements of the law on our hearts.

That’s the logical conclusion of God designing everything, the gospel according to the Discovery Institute. Truth contradicts truth.

But hang on. We know God didn’t design those worms. We know God doesn’t design biological weapons. They evolved, just as we evolved. And we know God wants us to do what’s written on our hearts and stop pointless suffering. Truth does not contradict truth.

There’s a huge moral difference between a designer who chooses to design biological weapons and a designer who chooses not to design biological weapons. A moral gulf, as wide as the east is from the west.

No difference at all if one takes God’s omnipotence and omniscience into account.

Omnipotence: God created everything out of nothing and set in motion, by his creative act, all secondary causes leading to secondary effects.

Omniscience: at the moment of creation, God knew and hence willed all future effects arising from those secondary causes - i.e. he created those secondary causes in such a way that they would produce the secondary effects.

God, in other words, is responsible for everything that materially happens in this universe. The only exception is any sinful act arising from free will. Choosing evil is something for which we ourselves are entirely responsible. But all the rest: natural disasters, illness, mutations, etc. are willed by God.

So even if one posits that biological organisms like viruses evolved by chance (and a serious study of informational genetics makes that a tough one to pull off), the viruses still came into existence because God wanted them to. To affirm they came into existence against his will or without his knowledge is to deny one or other divine attribute.

Our real problem with physical evils like disease or floods is that we humans are hardwired to do good to our neighbor and we always perceive it as evil if we do anything materially bad to him. But God is not bound by this constraint. He can and does cause material harm in order to draw a superior spiritual good out of it. Heck, we all die - the ultimate material harm - but that is (or should be) our doorway to heaven.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . people have a tendency to believe what they want to believe. . . And we don’t want to die. And we need something to comfort us in times of loss. And we need to know that there is justice in an unjust world. We need someone to care in an uncaring world and someone to love us when we feel unloved. And hey, I know where I can get all the boxes ticked.

And if you look at the world as it really is, as it always has been for the vast majority of people who have ever lived, then you can see why people need religion. You can see why it is the default position for almost everyone who has ever existed.

But…the horrors and the pain, the lack of justice, the unfairness of life itself is, according to the conclusion of this thread, all God’s work. He has designed it this way. There is nothing that is not under His control. So if your kid dies of leukaemia, then that is part of the plan. If your sister gets cancer, then that is His plan. If your wife gets raped and murdered, then He has not simply allowed that to happen to ensure free will, it is part of The Plan. There is no way to get around this. . . Suffice to say that the Big Guy doesn’t come out of it looking too good in Bradski’s opinion. And if He does exist and he’s reading this over my shoulder as I type it (and He’d know what I could have typed), then I’d like to imagine that He’s thinking: ‘Well he’s wrong. But I can see his point’.

I don’t think anyone will disagree with the vision you present of the world as a terrible place. Walk into a church and prominent will be the statue of a man hanging on a cross, someone who knows all our pain and has taken it all upon Himself that we might know eternal peace and joy.

I understand the god of atheism, what it sees as the ground of our being - blind and uncaring. Somehow justice, love, and consciousness appeared among the elements of nature, but only to torture us as they do with the Sisyphean task of fighting injustice, finding love and making some sense of our individual existence. This in a world which refuses to comply, because it is not in its nature, leading humanity to find solace in an illusory heaven of butterflies, rainbows and unicorns. That’s only the appearance.

All this is designed so that we might find love. It does turn out well for those who seek love and justice. I would refer the reader to the Beatitudes, spoken from the mountain. Our lives are more than brief moments of pleasure and pain, terrifyingly and thankfully to be swallowed by oblivion. This has a purpose. And, most importantly, we are loved.

It is the underlying goodness of creation, the connection to which has been damaged, that makes your point correct. All this suffering exists in nature, it is the way of the world. It should be natural for us, but it makes us angry. This is not only because it wounds our pride, but because it is an affront to love. Religions are the default position for mankind because they are a solution to what truly ails us.

It is in the Divine that we find that love that is so lacking in this world. And, faith is action, which means that we must strive to do His will, making this His kingdom one heart at a time.

 

[Bradski]

He can and does cause material harm in order to draw a superior spiritual good out of it.

So if I get a paper cut, that’s part of God’s plan to increase my ‘spiritual good’.

But really, I can’t see me getting on my knees and thanking God for something as minor as that. Where is the benefit in what is just a scratch? So I guess He really has to crank up the suffering to make it worth our while.

That’s the logical conclusion, isn’t it? No pain, no gain! The more we suffer, the greater the spiritual good we can get from it. So if your kid got cancer and is cured, well tough luck. You didn’t get as much benefit as your neighbour who lost his whole family. Gee, the lucky son of a gun. He must be swimming in spritual goodness!

He must bounce out of bed every morning, giving praise to the Almighty for the opportunity to be part of His plan.

But me? I’m spiritually barren. I must be cursed. My whole family is fit and healthy. Some guys get all the luck.

 

[Vonsalza]

So you can’t tell the difference because…it’s ALL designed and there is nothing that occurs by chance. Again, fair enough.

Tiny caveat, the processes that create a nest versus the processes that create a pile of leaves are undeniably different. But one is no less “divinely mandated” than the other.

Consequently, everything in existence is intentionally part of His design. Fluffy kittens, nematose worms, mango daiquiris, ebola, tsunamis, snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes, all things bright and beautiful and all things dark and horrendous.

Welcome to His world.

Yup.

---

As an aside, when you mentioned “free will” you touched on one of the great debated themes of human existence, to which I’ve seen no conclusive answer. Sometimes I’m not sure what it is, exactly (yes, yes, I know the definitions given by religious and secular academia).

 

[inocente]

No difference at all if one takes God’s omnipotence and omniscience into account.

Omnipotence: God created everything out of nothing and set in motion, by his creative act, all secondary causes leading to secondary effects.

Omniscience: at the moment of creation, God knew and hence willed all future effects arising from those secondary causes - i.e. he created those secondary causes in such a way that they would produce the secondary effects.

God, in other words, is responsible for everything that materially happens in this universe. The only exception is any sinful act arising from free will. Choosing evil is something for which we ourselves are entirely responsible. But all the rest: natural disasters, illness, mutations, etc. are willed by God.

So even if one posits that biological organisms like viruses evolved by chance (and a serious study of informational genetics makes that a tough one to pull off), the viruses still came into existence because God wanted them to. To affirm they came into existence against his will or without his knowledge is to deny one or other divine attribute.

Our real problem with physical evils like disease or floods is that we humans are hardwired to do good to our neighbor and we always perceive it as evil if we do anything materially bad to him. But God is not bound by this constraint. He can and does cause material harm in order to draw a superior spiritual good out of it. Heck, we all die - the ultimate material harm - but that is (or should be) our doorway to heaven.

There’s a design fan on this thread who claims God just can’t cope with the complexities of his creation, so bad coincidences happen. Your solution to the problem of evil sounds closer to Aquinas, but you perhaps added your own consequentialist slant - God is a utilitarian, the ends justify the means, doesn’t matter how much suffering He causes along the way, as long as the end result is greater utility overall. Not sure you’ll win many converts with that message .

But let’s take your claim that there is no difference between God actively designing biological weapons and God allowing evolution to proceed. Therefore no difference can be observed between weapons produced by the blind forces of evolution, and weapons designed by an infinitely intelligent God. Really? Can God not design weapons any more effective than blind forces? Then clearly Paul was wrong in Romans 1:20, God’s eternal power and divine nature cannot be seen, they are indistinguishable from blind forces.

And morally the difference is huge. If God actively designs those weapons, even with good intent, then God is actively inventing evil, and using it on his children, using human beings as objects, as a means to justify His good ends. Whereas if God allows the weapons to evolve, he allows it because the same process evolves us. We couldn’t have evolved without the other things evolving too. That’s the good coming from evil. To me that fits better with Aquinas’ argument, God’s not unaware, incompetent or a designer.

I had a look at the CCC, which says the problem of evil is a mystery for which there are no quick answers. The Good News from the Discovery Institute doesn’t seem to have reached the Church yet.

 

[o_mlly]

…And we don’t want to die. … if your kid dies of leukaemia … If your sister gets cancer …If your wife gets raped and murdered…

Would we prefer that we never existed? Never had that beautiful child? Never married that wonderful woman? Wished they never existed, as well?

I’m with Wordsworth in answering these questions for those who survive loved ones:
What though the radiance which was once so bright
Be now for ever taken from my sight,
Though nothing can bring back the hour
Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower;
We will grieve not, rather find
Strength in what remains behind;
In the primal sympathy
Which having been must ever be;
In the soothing thoughts that spring
Out of human suffering;
In the faith that looks through death,
In years that bring the philosophic mind.
No analogy is perfect but this life to me resembles the backyard sandbox, a place where a loving parent puts their child knowing that in that place nobody really ever gets hurt. The bullies may take your toys, Freddy may throw sand in your face, Mary may sit next to someone else to your dismay but no one in the sandbox can take your life, no one in this life can take control of your immortal soul. Henley got that right, as well (“Invictus”).

 

[inocente]

So if I get a paper cut, that’s part of God’s plan to increase my ‘spiritual good’.

But really, I can’t see me getting on my knees and thanking God for something as minor as that. Where is the benefit in what is just a scratch? So I guess He really has to crank up the suffering to make it worth our while.

That’s the logical conclusion, isn’t it? No pain, no gain! The more we suffer, the greater the spiritual good we can get from it. So if your kid got cancer and is cured, well tough luck. You didn’t get as much benefit as your neighbour who lost his whole family. Gee, the lucky son of a gun. He must be swimming in spritual goodness!

He must bounce out of bed every morning, giving praise to the Almighty for the opportunity to be part of His plan.

But me? I’m spiritually barren. I must be cursed. My whole family is fit and healthy. Some guys get all the luck.

On no account ever give aid, apparently it undoes the intelligent designer’s greater good.



Nearly 1.4 million children at risk of death in north-east Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen
unicef.org/emergencies/index_95476.html
unicef.es/hazte-socio-hambruna?gclid=CjwKEAjwl9DIBRCG_e3DwsKsizsSJADMmJ11bwDMVzM4uJvRXORE1nZ8HHEwPgMcrZ6K598XbZW8XxoCriHw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

[Vonsalza]

On no account ever give aid, apparently it undoes the intelligent designer’s greater good.

How in the hell does that nonsense logically follow?

 

[inocente]

How in the hell does that nonsense logically follow?

“Famine is looming in north-east Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen and beyond, as nearly 1.4 million children are at imminent risk of death from severe acute malnutrition this year.” - unicef.org/emergencies/index_95476.html

I am being told that the intelligent designer designs everything, and does so for the greater good.

Ergo, everything is designed, the famine is no exception. The intelligent designer has designed these famines for tens of thousands of years, They like everything else, are designed to draw out a superior spiritual good. Therefore we must not intervene to subvert the intelligent designer’s perfect plan.

I am pointing out the wide moral gulf between the ivory tower theoretical gymnastics which are apparently necessary to support the intelligent design movement, and mercy.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

“Famine is looming in north-east Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen and beyond, as nearly 1.4 million children are at imminent risk of death from severe acute malnutrition this year.” - unicef.org/emergencies/index_95476.html

I am being told that the intelligent designer designs everything, and does so for the greater good.

Ergo, everything is designed, the famine is no exception. The intelligent designer has designed these famines for tens of thousands of years, They like everything else, are designed to draw out a superior spiritual good. Therefore we must not intervene to subvert the intelligent designer’s perfect plan.

I am pointing out the wide moral gulf between the ivory tower theoretical gymnastics which are apparently necessary to support the intelligent design movement, and mercy.

I don’t believe that you’re addressing any correct characterization of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design does not involve everything being designed but only certain features. Morality need not apply. Clearly, there are things that are “designed” by humans and other animals. Read directly from Discovery Institute here (Q/A section about Intelligent Design).

I really find it hard to believe that all major aspects of intelligent design are false or unreasonable, although I’m aware that hype and popular media may make it seem that way. I’m open to accepting some aspects of intelligent design if there is a way to rule out time/natural selection.

 

[Bradski]

Would we prefer that we never existed? Never had that beautiful child? Never married that wonderful woman? Wished they never existed, as well?

It’s not a question that concerns me. I know that the universe doesn’t care about me. That the only people who do are the ones close to me. I know that if tragedy happens, then it’s just the roll of the dice. I know it’s not part of some monstrous plan.

I don’t have anyone to blame.

If you discovered that an alien race was actually controlling our existence, deciding who lived and who died, causing pain and anguish because it served some unknowable ‘greater good’, wouldn’t you be horrified?

 

[Aloysium]

How in the hell does that nonsense logically follow?

It doesn’t.

As convoluted as the reasoning is, the post does provide us with an opportunity for further clarity in regards to the “question of evil”.

Fact is that there is enough in this world to feed everyone. The fuel driving the political systems that keep this current state of affairs going, are power, greed and fear, rooted in sin, an absence of love. As revealed in the parable of the fishes and loaves, all we need to do is come together and share in the bounty God provides for all of us, He will do the rest. It is “designed” to be so. Let’s get cracking on that.

 

[inocente]

I don’t believe that you’re addressing any correct characterization of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design does not involve everything being designed but only certain features. Morality need not apply. Clearly, there are things that are “designed” by humans and other animals. Read directly from Discovery Institute here (Q/A section about Intelligent Design).

I really find it hard to believe that all major aspects of intelligent design are false or unreasonable, although I’m aware that hype and popular media may make it seem that way. I’m open to accepting some aspects of intelligent design if there is a way to rule out time/natural selection.

I was responding to posters who claim everything is designed. You claim instead that not everything is designed. Each design fan seems to have his own personal dogma. Thanks for the link but I’m a Christian and not interested in the Discovery Institute brand. It’s been likened to a cargo cult, and may sell well in America but that’s only 5% of the world and it doesn’t have much market penetration here.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I was responding to posters who claim everything is designed. You claim instead that not everything is designed.

You also attributed the claim of everything being designed to the Discovery Institute. You stated this in post 695:

“That’s the logical conclusion of God designing everything, the gospel according to the Discovery Institute. Truth contradicts truth.”

The Discovery Institute clearly says that “some” features are designed.

 

[Bradski]

You also attributed the claim of everything being designed to the Discovery Institute. You stated this in post 695:

“That’s the logical conclusion of God designing everything, the gospel according to the Discovery Institute. Truth contradicts truth.”

The Discovery Institute clearly says that “some” features are designed.

That’s being a touch naive.

It’s impossible to prove that everything is designed, so they’ll move heaven and earth to get one foot in the door and voila - it stands to reason that if one thing is designed then it all must be.

Treat every single thing that these guys say with the utmost caution. They have no shame.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

That’s being a touch naive.

It’s impossible to prove that everything is designed, so they’ll move heaven and earth to get one foot in the door and voila - it stands to reason that if one thing is designed then it all must be.
h
Treat every single thing that these guys say with the utmost caution. They have no shame.

I understand what you’re saying but I also believe both sides (nonbelievers included) have something to gain here. Now nonbelievers can use all of the harmful designs as arguments against an intelligent designer, such as God. Either way, your point speaks more to people’s motives to bolster their case, but it’s possible for people believe that only some things are designed based on intellectually-honest reasons. It’s certainly a separate issue than the actual facts where the Discovery Institute explicitly claims that not everything is designed. Based on that, I’m not sure how someone can draw a “logical conclusion” that all things are designed and then attribute it to the Discovery Institute like inocente did earlier.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

There’s a design fan on this thread who claims God just can’t cope with the complexities of his creation, so bad coincidences happen. Your solution to the problem of evil sounds closer to Aquinas, but you perhaps added your own consequentialist slant - God is a utilitarian, the ends justify the means, doesn’t matter how much suffering He causes along the way, as long as the end result is greater utility overall. Not sure you’ll win many converts with that message .

Perhaps I’m slow on the uptake, but I just don’t get what the problem is for anyone coming from a Christian background. God willed that his own Son should die by the most agonizing from of capital punishment ever devised. He willed it: “If this cup cannot pass me by but I must drink, thy will be done.”

And then we are up in arms over the notion that we form part and parcel of the same will?

For an atheist/agnostic I understand that it makes no sense, either for Christ to die or any human being to suffer a toothache. I get it that our soft, materialistic western hedonism sees any kind of suffering as an outrage. We are supposed to be happy. There is no afterlife. Therefore we should have as pleasant and comfortable an existence as possible in the 80-odd years we live on this planet.

For a Christian however the basic premise is that this life is not paradise. The next life will be, if we have conformed ourselves to God’s plan for our redemption. Physical suffering is not necessarily a scandal but can be very beneficial - the crucifixion, remember?

 

[inocente]

It doesn’t.

As convoluted as the reasoning is, the post does provide us with an opportunity for further clarity in regards to the “question of evil”.

Fact is that there is enough in this world to feed everyone. The fuel driving the political systems that keep this current state of affairs going, are power, greed and fear, rooted in sin, an absence of love. As revealed in the parable of the fishes and loaves, all we need to do is come together and share in the bounty God provides for all of us, He will do the rest. It is “designed” to be so. Let’s get cracking on that.

I’m being told that for tens of thousands of years, the intelligent designer has designed famines for the greater good. So if it’s for the greater good, we ought not meddle.

Please explain why you think my reasoning is convoluted.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, but then I don’t believe in intelligent design, much less in a designer who designs famines for the greater good. And that is what I’m being told: “natural disasters, illness, mutations, etc. are willed by God …] He can and does cause material harm in order to draw a superior spiritual good out of it”.

Perhaps I’m slow on the uptake, but I just don’t get what the problem is for anyone coming from a Christian background. God willed that his own Son should die by the most agonizing from of capital punishment ever devised. He willed it: “If this cup cannot pass me by but I must drink, thy will be done.”

And then we are up in arms over the notion that we form part and parcel of the same will?

For an atheist/agnostic I understand that it makes no sense, either for Christ to die or any human being to suffer a toothache. I get it that our soft, materialistic western hedonism sees any kind of suffering as an outrage. We are supposed to be happy. There is no afterlife. Therefore we should have as pleasant and comfortable an existence as possible in the 80-odd years we live on this planet.

For a Christian however the basic premise is that this life is not paradise. The next life will be, if we have conformed ourselves to God’s plan for our redemption. Physical suffering is not necessarily a scandal but can be very beneficial - the crucifixion, remember?

I believe famines are not part of any design or any plan, they cause pointless suffering, they are purposeless. That seems blindingly obvious to me, and Jesus just like us wants to feed the hungry, not make famines for tens of thousands of years for some unknowable greater good. I do not believe that it is “very beneficial” that for tens of thousands of years people have died in famines. There’s a spiritual famine somewhere.

 

[Bradski]

I understand what you’re saying but I also believe both sides (nonbelievers included) have something to gain here. Now nonbelievers can use all of the harmful designs as arguments against an intelligent designer, such as God. Either way, your point speaks more to people’s motives to bolster their case, but it’s possible for people believe that only some things are designed based on intellectually-honest reasons. It’s certainly a separate issue than the actual facts where the Discovery Institute explicitly claims that not everything is designed. Based on that, I’m not sure how someone can draw a “logical conclusion” that all things are designed and then attribute it to the Discovery Institute like inocente did earlier.

I must point out that the question of suffering (or evil if you will) is not an argument I would use against the concept of God. I don’t actually think that there are solid arguments
against God.

Let’s go back to the aliens. If they existed and they had designed our world as it is and programmed all that happens, and then punished people for disobeying a few inconsequential rules in a manner totally out of proportion to the ‘crime’, then we would all agree that they were evil incarnate.

If you really had a grasp on how the world operates and were asked if it were the work of a benevolent deity or a sadistic adolescent alien, then I know which I would choose