Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

The view that all values are subjective is easily disproved. It presupposes belief in the objective value of reasoning. If reasoning is only a matter of opinion and not necessarily valuable why should we accept the view that all values are subjective?!

 

[tonyrey]

scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/theodicy_irenaeus.htm

I’ve no knowledge of Irenaeus but going from that page (a high school philosophy of religion course), I don’t find your argument for hell - it says “Irenaeus argued that everyone goes to heaven. This would appear unjust, in that evil goes unpunished. Morality becomes pointless. This is not orthodox Christianity. It denies the fall, and Jesus’ role is reduced to that of moral example.”

BTW To cite an article does not imply that one accepts every statement on a particular page. The point is that St Irenaeus was outstanding for his view that - in the words of Keats - the world is “a vale of soul-making”, i.e. an opportunity for spiritual development which clearly fits into the concept of Design.

Do you reject that view? If so why?

The rejection of Design undoubtedly implies that rational, conscious, moral persons have been produced by the blind interplay of non-rational, non-conscious, amoral and impersonal forces.

Immanuel Kant - who is often regarded as a critic of the argument from Design - stated unequivocally:

“Physical teleology sufficiently proves for theoretical reflective judgement **an intelligent cause **of the world; moral teleology proves it for the practical judgement, through the conception of an ultimate end which must be attributed in creation when we view it in relation to action.” - Critique of Teleological Judgement

Even David Hume believed “Chance has no place on any hypothesis sceptical or religious.” - Dialogues concerning Natural Religion

 

[inocente]

The dichotomy has existed throughout Western philosophy from the ancient opposition between Anaxagoras and the Atomists down to the present disagreement between theists and atheists. Marcus Aurelius wrote in his Meditations of the need to choose between Providence and “a fortuitous concourse of atoms”. Bertrand Russell stated that to deny Design is to imply that “man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving". Two other British philosophers: HP Owen remarked that the only alternative to a Designer is sheer **“chance” **and FR Tennant observed that in the absence of Design one is bound to resort to the alternative theory of cumulative groundless coincidence”. An American atheist GG Simpson asserted that “Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process did not have him in mind. He was not planned.”

What is (are) the alternative(s) to Design and non-Design?

Arguments from design are basically that if things look like they are designed then hay presto they must be designed, so hay presto there must be a designer. It is intellectually lazy, and it stops further inquiry (Q: Why do all the other billions of galaxies exist? A: God has a purpose, and it’s not for us to know).

Even then the designer is not identified, it could be Thor or a Klingon, and attempting to apply it to the Christian God involves inventing a baroque complexity of further arguments to explain why a god of good would design nasty stuff along with the nice stuff, why God’s design doesn’t overcome natural evil, and so on.

Arguments from design are the wrong starting point, they can offer nothing except perhaps to shore up a comforting status quo, they are not just a waste of intellectual endeavor, they bind us, they send us off in the wrong direction.

On the other hand we’ve consistently found that starting out with as few assumptions as possible leads to all kinds of interesting questions, and these lead to real knowledge, the curing of diseases, the betterment of humankind.

So the alternative is to cast out the demons of design and non-design, out demons out. It may mean dispensing with a few cherished beliefs, but God is found in what is real and true, not in complicated wrong cul-de-sacs.

 

[inocente]

Addressing the points I have made would remove confusion:

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the directiveness of the simple cell, the progressive nature of evolution and the existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

Thanks, it takes away some of the confusion, but it doesn’t seem to follow logically. To me it’s subjective, all from a human perspective. And it doesn’t explain why there is falsity, badness, slavery, injustice, ugliness, hate, natural evil, death, the directiveness of deadly viruses, the indifferent cruelties of evolution. Your last words are not just species specific but somewhat relativistic – e.g. the natives of Argentina and the UK have different takes on the self-determination of the Malvinas/Falklands, the natives of Singapore have a different take on freedom, etc.

*Scientific evidence for Design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of a living cell.
3. The progressive nature of evolution.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

How do you explain all the above factors? Do you believe they have an irrational origin? *

1. is circular – whatever the laws of nature produce are necessarily the products of the laws of nature.
   2 and 3. appear to be misunderstandings - the process is blind without any goals.
2. DNA, like virtually everything else, was discovered by those who explore beyond easy answers like design, so this sounds like an especially lazy god-of-the-gaps.
3. Wrong, life seems to occur anywhere the parameters allow, the odds are underwhelming.
4. Interesting from someone who has argued the mind is immaterial.
5. None of your points are scientific evidence for design. To be scientific you need to make a falsifiable statement backed by empirical evidence.

I don’t know what “irrational origin” means, unless it is the argument that love is irrational, and as God is love our origin must therefore be irrational, QED.

Where does Irenaeus argue that everyone goes to heaven? He would hardly be canonised if he denied the existence of hell.

I don’t know his work and am just going by the article you linked – see the last section.

Chance and Design are not entities:

I’m not the one capitalizing those words.

 

[inocente]

BTW To cite an article does not imply that one accepts every statement on a particular page. The point is that St Irenaeus was outstanding for his view that - in the words of Keats - the world is “a vale of soul-making”, i.e. an opportunity for spiritual development which clearly fits into the concept of Design.

Do you reject that view? If so why?

Already answered, the little child who endures pointless suffering before dying from an incurable disease. The Holocaust.

The idea that the purpose of life is we’re lab rats being tested to see who is worthy is a sci-fi fantasy.

No statement [on the purpose of the Holocaust], theological or otherwise, should be made that would not be credible in the presence of burning children. - Irving Greenberg

*The rejection of Design undoubtedly implies that rational, conscious, moral persons have been produced by the blind interplay of non-rational, non-conscious, amoral and impersonal forces.

Immanuel Kant - who is often regarded as a critic of the argument from Design - stated unequivocally:

“Physical teleology sufficiently proves for theoretical reflective judgement **an intelligent cause ***of the world; moral teleology proves it for the practical judgement, through the conception of an ultimate end which must be attributed in creation when we view it in relation to action.” - Critique of Teleological Judgement

Even David Hume believed “Chance has no place on any hypothesis sceptical or religious.” - Dialogues concerning Natural Religion

I’m not much for authority figures, and if I was would choose different minor celebs.

Morality doesn’t need to be based on design, and there’s no reason why we must choose between design and chance. But it’s all dusty, off-track - in this of all weeks we preach Christ crucified, all you need is love, love is all you need.

 

[tonyrey]

Arguments from design are basically that if things look like they are designed then hay presto they must be designed, so hay presto there must be a designer. It is intellectually lazy, and it stops further inquiry (Q: Why do all the other billions of galaxies exist? A: God has a purpose, and it’s not for us to know).

 

[tonyrey]

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the directiveness of the simple cell, the progressive nature of evolution and the existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

Please explain why you believe **all **those factors exist solely in the human mind.

And it doesn’t explain why there is falsity, badness, slavery, injustice, ugliness, hate, natural evil, death, the directiveness of deadly viruses, the indifferent cruelties of evolution.

Those negative factors are inevitable consequences that have already been explained and discussed.

Your last words are not just species specific but somewhat relativistic – e.g. the natives of Argentina and the UK have different takes on the self-determination of the Malvinas/Falklands, the natives of Singapore have a different take on freedom, etc.

Do you believe there are human beings who do not have the capacity for unselfish love **and **the right to life, freedom and self-determination?

Scientific evidence for Design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of a living cell.
3. The progressive nature of evolution.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

How do you explain all the above factors? Do you believe they have an irrational origin?

1. is circular – whatever the laws of nature produce are necessarily the products of the laws of nature.

You are assuming materialism is true - that life and a rational existence can be explained by the laws of nature.

2 and 3. appear to be misunderstandings - the process is blind without any goals.

The processes are blind but their directive and progressive nature is purposeful.

1. DNA, like virtually everything else, was discovered by those who explore beyond easy answers like design, so this sounds like an especially lazy god-of-the-gaps.

Read “The Signature of the Cell”.

1. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.

Wrong, life seems to occur anywhere the parameters allow, the odds are underwhelming.

The issue is not its occurrence but survival. Life on this planet has almost become extinct several times.

1. The development of the human brain.

Interesting from someone who has argued the mind is immaterial.

Only materialists believe the mind is no more than the functioning of the brain.

1. None of your points are scientific evidence for design. To be scientific you need to make a falsifiable statement backed by empirical evidence.

I have pointed out more than once how they can be falsified. Don’t you regard human activity as empirical evidence?

I don’t know what “irrational origin” means, unless it is the argument that love is irrational, and as God is love our origin must therefore be irrational, QED.

In this context “irrational” means “non-rational” - as in Bertrand Russell’s phrase “causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving”.

God is neither rational nor irrational but “suprarational” because all positive descriptions of the Supreme Being are analogical.

Chance and Design are not entities:

I’m not the one capitalizing those words.

Capitalizing is not always confined to entities.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the directiveness of the simple cell, the progressive nature of evolution and the existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

Please explain why you believe **all **those factors exist solely in the human mind.

And it doesn’t explain why there is falsity, badness, slavery, injustice, ugliness, hate, natural evil, death, the directiveness of deadly viruses, the indifferent cruelties of evolution.

Those negative factors are inevitable consequences that have already been explained and discussed.

Your last words are not just species specific but somewhat relativistic – e.g. the natives of Argentina and the UK have different takes on the self-determination of the Malvinas/Falklands, the natives of Singapore have a different take on freedom, etc.

Do you believe there are human beings who do not have the capacity for unselfish love **and **the right to life, freedom and self-determination?

Scientific evidence for Design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of a living cell.
3. The progressive nature of evolution.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

How do you explain all the above factors? Do you believe they have an irrational origin?

1. is circular – whatever the laws of nature produce are necessarily the products of the laws of nature.

You are assuming materialism is true - that life and a rational existence can be explained by the laws of nature.

2 and 3. appear to be misunderstandings - the process is blind without any goals.

The processes are blind but their directive and progressive nature is purposeful.

1. DNA, like virtually everything else, was discovered by those who explore beyond easy answers like design, so this sounds like an especially lazy god-of-the-gaps.

Read “The Signature of the Cell”.

1. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.

Wrong, life seems to occur anywhere the parameters allow, the odds are underwhelming.

The issue is not its occurrence but survival. Life on this planet has almost become extinct several times.

1. The development of the human brain.

Interesting from someone who has argued the mind is immaterial.

Only materialists believe the mind is no more than the functioning of the brain.

1. None of your points are scientific evidence for design. To be scientific you need to make a falsifiable statement backed by empirical evidence.

I have pointed out more than once how they can be falsified. Don’t you regard human activity as empirical evidence?

I don’t know what “irrational origin” means, unless it is the argument that love is irrational, and as God is love our origin must therefore be irrational, QED.

In this context “irrational” means “non-rational” - as in Bertrand Russell’s phrase “causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving”.

God is neither rational nor irrational but “suprarational” because all positive descriptions of the Supreme Being are analogical.

Chance and Design are not entities:

I’m not the one capitalizing those words.

Capitalizing is not always confined to entities. Providence is not an entity.

 

[tonyrey]

BTW To cite an article does not imply that one accepts every

Does that disprove the “vale of soul-making” explanation? Do the vast majority of people endure pointless suffering before dying from an incurable disease while they are children?

The idea that the purpose of life is we’re lab rats being tested to see who is worthy is a sci-fi fantasy.

.
Which exists only in your mind. For most people life is an opportunity for spiritual development.

No statement [on the purpose of the Holocaust], theological or otherwise, should be made that would not be credible in the presence of burning children. - Irving Greenberg.

Irrelevant. The Holocaust was purposeless - apart from the purpose of the Nazis who were abusing the gift of free will.

*The rejection of Design undoubtedly implies that rational, conscious, moral persons have been produced by the blind interplay of non-rational, non-conscious, amoral and impersonal forces.

Immanuel Kant - who is often regarded as a critic of the argument from Design - stated unequivocally:

“Physical teleology sufficiently proves for theoretical reflective judgement **an intelligent cause ***of the world; moral teleology proves it for the practical judgement, through the conception of an ultimate end which must be attributed in creation when we view it in relation to action.” - Critique of Teleological Judgement

Even David Hume believed “Chance has no place on any hypothesis sceptical or religious.” - Dialogues concerning Natural Religion
I’m not much for authority figures, and if I was would choose different minor celebs.

Please address their statements.

Morality doesn’t need to be based on design…

What is morality based on?

… and there’s no reason why we must choose between design and chance.

The choice is between Design and non-Design.

But it’s all dusty, off-track - in this of all weeks we preach Christ crucified, all you need is love, love is all you need…

Is love due to Chance rather than Design? Did Christ have no purpose in letting Himself be crucified?

 

[inocente]

The Design Argument is not “Things look like they are designed” but"Persons and things fulfil many purposes that cannot be adequately explained by purposeless events."

I can’t find that under any design argument heading, please cite a reference.

I have already pointed out the Design Argument is not concerned with the nature of the Designer. Its implications are a topic for another thread.

If it says nothing about the nature of the designer then it says nothing about the purpose of the designer, which could be an evil monster, an alien or a random number generator. Seems to be an extravagantly purpose-free argument.

Your simplistic view of reality cannot possibly do justice to its complexity. Design does not “overcome natural evil” but entails natural evil - as demonstrated by the inability of natural laws to cater for every contingency.

That manages to be incoherent and circular. If design entails natural evil then the laws of nature are designed to entail natural evil, therefore natural evil demonstrates their perfect design, anything whatsoever would demonstrate their design, and so the argument says nothing at all.

Also, as it’s blindingly obvious that the laws of nature deal with every contingency since otherwise the universe would stop and unravel, it’s the very definition of subjective thinking to say the laws can’t cater every contingency just because you don’t like some of the outcomes. We’ve been over this time and time again.

And your discourtesy means that, following your rules, I didn’t read the rest of that post.

 

[inocente]

Please explain why you believe **all **those factors exist solely in the human mind.

You made up that list and you’re human, you’re not God.

Those negative factors are inevitable consequences that have already been explained and discussed.

They are only negative from your subjective perspective.

*Do you believe there are human beings who do not have the capacity for unselfish love **and ***the right to life, freedom and self-determination?

Murderous psychopaths.

You are assuming materialism is true - that life and a rational existence can be explained by the laws of nature.

You’re the one who wrote “The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence”, which sounds eminently materialist to me.

The processes are blind but their directive and progressive nature is purposeful.

Evolution is goalless, it has no progressive nature.

Read “The Signature of the Cell”.

Thanks but I steer clear of flawed, false ID propaganda.

The issue is not its occurrence but survival. Life on this planet has almost become extinct several times.

Doesn’t the fact that life has come back and survived several times makes it blindingly obvious that it doesn’t face “overwhelming odds”?

Only materialists believe the mind is no more than the functioning of the brain.

You’re the one who said “Scientific evidence for Design consists of: …The development of the human brain”.

*I have pointed out more than once how they can be falsified. Don’t you regard human activity as empirical evidence? *

Could you point me at the post(s) then, I’m curious as to the criteria and experimental protocol.

*In this context “irrational” means “non-rational” - as in Bertrand Russell’s phrase “causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving”.

God is neither rational nor irrational but “suprarational” because all positive descriptions of the Supreme Being are analogical.*

You just said earlier that design isn’t concerned with the nature of the designer, so this is off-topic.

 

[inocente]

Does that disprove the “vale of soul-making” explanation? Do the vast majority of people endure pointless suffering before dying from an incurable disease while they are children?

Yes of course it disproves it. How can we possibly arrive at truth by ignoring truth? It would be pathologically immoral to ignore child deaths for the sake of propping up a theory. Give some numbers on how high infant mortality has to be before you’d stop ignoring it?

Which exists only in your mind. For most people life is an opportunity for spiritual development.

That sounds silly season – a non-existent person has no opportunities, of course opportunities only apply to people who exist.

*Irrelevant. The Holocaust was purposeless - apart from the purpose of the Nazis who were abusing the gift of free will. *

The idea here seems to be that whatever evidence doesn’t support design must at all costs be roundly ignored.

Please address their statements.

Already did, hence your following two comments.

*What is morality based on? *

Love.

The choice is between Design and non-Design.

You quoted Hume talking about chance, not non-Design, whatever that may be.

Is love due to Chance rather than Design? Did Christ have no purpose in letting Himself be crucified?

One minute design means a teleological argument, the next it means some kind of entity that might produce love, this is all very confusing. Christ died to set us free 2 Cor 5:21.

And with that I’m calling it a day unless something new and exciting happens, as we seem to be going round in circles. See you around.

 

[tonyrey]

You made up that list and you’re human, you’re not God.

They are only negative from your subjective perspective.

Murderous psychopaths.

You’re the one who wrote “The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence”, which sounds eminently materialist to me.

Evolution is goalless, it has no progressive nature.

Thanks but I steer clear of flawed, false ID propaganda.

Doesn’t the fact that life has come back and survived several times makes it blindingly obvious that it doesn’t face “overwhelming odds”?

You’re the one who said “Scientific evidence for Design consists of: …The development of the human brain”.

Could you point me at the post(s) then, I’m curious as to the criteria and experimental protocol.

You just said earlier that design isn’t concerned with the nature of the designer, so this is off-topic.

I leave others to decide whether your objections are rational.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes of course it disproves it. How can we possibly arrive at truth by ignoring truth? It would be pathologically immoral to ignore child deaths for the sake of propping up a theory. Give some numbers on how high infant mortality has to be before you’d stop ignoring it?

That sounds silly season – a non-existent person has no opportunities, of course opportunities only apply to people who exist.

The idea here seems to be that whatever evidence doesn’t support design must at all costs be roundly ignored.

Already did, hence your following two comments.

Love.

You quoted Hume talking about chance, not non-Design, whatever that may be.

One minute design means a teleological argument, the next it means some kind of entity that might produce love, this is all very confusing. Christ died to set us free 2 Cor 5:21.

And with that I’m calling it a day unless something new and exciting happens, as we seem to be going round in circles. See you around.

I leave others to decide whether your objections are rational.

 

[tonyrey]

I can’t find that under any design argument heading, please cite a reference.

If it says nothing about the nature of the designer then it says nothing about the purpose of the designer, which could be an evil monster, an alien or a random number generator. Seems to be an extravagantly purpose-free argument.

That manages to be incoherent and circular. If design entails natural evil then the laws of nature are designed to entail natural evil, therefore natural evil demonstrates their perfect design, anything whatsoever would demonstrate their design, and so the argument says nothing at all.

Also, as it’s blindingly obvious that the laws of nature deal with every contingency since otherwise the universe would stop and unravel, it’s the very definition of subjective thinking to say the laws can’t cater every contingency just because you don’t like some of the outcomes. We’ve been over this time and time again.

And your discourtesy means that, following your rules, I didn’t read the rest of that post.

I leave others to decide whether your objections are rational.

 

[tonyrey]

For ease of reference I summarise the points made in my most recent posts:

1. For any reasonable person truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the directiveness of the simple cell, the progressive nature of evolution and the existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings are objective facts..
2. Negative factors such as moral and natural evil are the inevitable consequences of free will and the limitations of natural laws.
3. All civilised persons believe that all normal, mature human beings have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.
4. The laws of nature **need not exist **but are designed to sustain life and a rational existence within the universe.
5. Biological development has been progressive by any standards.
6. “The Signature of the Cell” explains that DNA is an extremely complex, hierarchical information system which is inadequately explained as the result of purposeless events.
7. The survival of life on this planet despite overwhelming odds is further evidence of Design.

8.The development of the human brain (the most complex structure in the universe) is inadequately explained by purposeless events.

1. For the vast majority of human beings life is an opportunity for **spiritual development.
   **
2. Purposeless events like the Holocaust are caused by the abuse of free will.

11.There is no alternative to the choice between Design and non-Design.

1. The purpose of Christ’s self-sacrifice was to liberate us from evil.

 

[tonyrey]

When he was an atheist Antony Flew stated that purpose is extremely rare in the universe and therefore insignificant. He and others have argued that it is anthropomorphic to attribute rational activity to anything but human beings - and possibly intelligent beings on other planets.

Pascal had more insight when he declared “Pensée fait la grandeur de l’homme.” (Thought makes man great.) He also pointed out that we are superior to the entire universe in at least one respect: we are aware it exists yet it doesn’t know we exist. It is our power of reason that is responsible for the remarkable success of science and our ability to control ourselves and our environment.

Purpose seems to be rare because it is intangible but tangibility is the weakest criterion of significance and frequency. In fact significance itself is intangible yet without it life is worthless! All the most important aspects of life are intangible: truth, goodness, freedom and love - and they all presuppose rational, purposeful activity.

The Design explanation is not anthropomorphic but ratiocentric. It puts consciousness and thought at the core of reality rather than regarding them as insignificant byproducts. It is ironic that the sceptic uses the power of reason to prove everything is ultimately unreasonable…

 

[grannymh]

When he was an atheist Antony Flew stated that purpose is extremely rare in the universe and therefore insignificant. He and others have argued that it is anthropomorphic to attribute rational activity to anything but human beings - and possibly intelligent beings on other planets.

Pascal had more insight when he declared “Pensée fait la grandeur de l’homme.” (Thought makes man great.) He also pointed out that we are superior to the entire universe in at least one respect: we are aware it exists yet it doesn’t know we exist. It is our power of reason that is responsible for the remarkable success of science and our ability to control ourselves and our environment.

Purpose seems to be rare because it is intangible but tangibility is the weakest criterion of significance and frequency. In fact significance itself is intangible yet without it life is worthless! All the most important aspects of life are intangible: truth, goodness, freedom and love - and they all presuppose rational, purposeful activity.

The Design explanation is not anthropomorphic but ratiocentric. It puts consciousness and thought at the core of reality rather than regarding them as insignificant byproducts. It is ironic that the sceptic uses the power of reason to prove everything is ultimately unreasonable…

Since we are discussing purpose…

The purpose of a human being can be found in the relationship between humanity (created) and Divinity (Creator). In this deep relationship, the ultimate purpose of a human being is the same purpose that God, the Creator, gave to all indviudal humans. God calls each person to share in His life through knowledge and love. There is no greater purpose than that.

It does not make any difference how many people deny the independent, objective existence of God nor how many people deny the spiritual soul in human nature. Neither God the Pure Spirit nor the person’s created spiritual soul depends on human affirmation.

 

[tonyrey]

Since we are discussing purpose…

The purpose of a human being can be found in the relationship between humanity (created) and Divinity (Creator). In this deep relationship, the ultimate purpose of a human being is the same purpose that God, the Creator, gave to all individual humans. God calls each person to share in His life through knowledge and love. There is no greater purpose than that.

It does not make any difference how many people deny the independent, objective existence of God nor how many people deny the spiritual soul in human nature. Neither God the Pure Spirit nor the person’s created spiritual soul depends on human affirmation.

A most appropriate post for the evening on which we re-enact the Last Supper.

 

[tonyrey]

The main limitation of the Design argument is that it tells us nothing about the Designer. It requires immense system and power to design the universe but there is one formidable objection to benevolence:

Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, hearing them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature - and that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance - and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?

• Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

The Problem of Evil is insoluble in terms of this world and this life. A terrible price has to be paid for freedom but what is the alternative? To create no one with free will, i.e. incapable of the highest form of love which entails self-sacrifice. The suffering of the innocent is certainly evil and abhorrent but it shouldn’t be allowed to outweigh every other consideration. That would amount to putting freedom from pain before everything else. No other evil would be considered a sufficient reason for not creating humanity. So why should pain be singled out?

It is because Ivan’s question makes us overcome with moral outrage at the gross injustice of the act and appalled by the sheer power of the torturer over an innocent, helpless creature. The full implications of human freedom are so sharply demonstrated that we recoil from the prospect of such godlike control and supremacy. We are confronted with the horrific reality of moral evil and all its hideous implications. There is hardly any limit to the atrocities of which persons are capable, as we can see from the bloodstained history of the human race culminating with the Holocaust and genocide in countries like Ruanda.

From a strictly logical point of view existence should be denied to the human race only if evil triumphs and outweighs the ultimate benefits of life. If there is an afterlife in which every tear is wiped away and everyone receives exactly what they deserve there is no valid reason for saying with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life had never existed on the face of this earth. In a worthwhile world a certain amount of sacrifice has to be accepted because it is impossible to have everything for nothing. But that fact alone does not seem to justify pointless suffering. Reason has to be supplemented by Revelation. Christianity is the only religion that has provided an adequate explanation.

Jesus chose to become a man to show us that pain and suffering can be transformed into a way of attaining spiritual perfection. We are not isolated individuals but members of one body. Tertullian pointed out that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. Although suffering is evil it can be transformed into a means of purification and sanctification. Jesus was not compelled to die as a scapegoat at the command of the Father. His death was not imposed on Him against His will. It was the result of His own decision to offer His life so that we might believe and be given His strength to overcome evil and temptation.

He made no attempt to save Himself, knowing full well what lay ahead, and He allowed injustice to triumph over Him even though He could have used his power to save Himself. Yet then He wouldn’t have liberated us from ourselves. We are not born into a neutral environment but one that is morally contaminated. We are caught up in a vortex of conflict and destruction, reacting almost automatically to hatred with hatred and violence with violence. Evil provokes more evil and leads to a literally vicious spiral from which we cannot escape. We tend to be conditioned by the treatment we receive from others and rarely overcome the natural tendency to retaliate and take revenge.

Jesus refused to be contaminated and poisoned by anger and bitterness. In spite of severe provocation He remained true to His principles of love and forgiveness, unmarred by the weakness we expect in such a situation. He retained his self-control in the face of injustice, suffering and death. Neither fear nor doubt nor pride made Him abandon his mission to liberate us from our weakness and blindness. His act of self-sacrifice was not made in the state of romantic ecstasy but with perfect lucidity, displaying a degree of personal freedom that men hardly imagined could exist. To forgive one’s torturers and executioners is a sublime proof of self-mastery.

His decision to allow himself to be tortured and killed was morally justified. His purpose was to help us to escape not from pain and death but from selfishness and cowardice. He became a man to uplift humanity without interfering with human freedom. Our personal guilt cannot be erased because we are all individually responsible for our behaviour and have to atone for our sins. But by becoming a member of the human race Jesus effected our redemption from within, thereby reconciling divine justice with forgiveness and demonstrating that there exists nothing more powerful than unselfish love. That is the most sublime evidence for divine Design we could ever expect…