how much evil can the world afford?

In a recent post, blog-neighbor Mark Olson turns the Problem of Evil around.

The claim is that theodicy is an intractable problem for the believer given the evil in the world. I think that this is not necessarily the case, but that those who object to the current state of affairs have failed to provide examples of a reasonable alternative world. Failing to do that means their theodicy objections lack force, that is they object to a state of affairs which may actually be exactly what is prescribed.

The quantified theodicist, in essence, claims that this is the best of all possible worlds. And, as Olson points out, imagining a better one leads to epistemic difficulties.

1. Some of them involve a failure of imagination. Imagine a world, for instance, in which humans can regrow limbs, or don't ever have to sleep, or are born with built-in iPods. Now imagine a world that you can't imagine. Which is the best world? How do you quantify the answer?

2. Besides, any rigorously logical attempt will be confounded by the Butterfly Effect.

3. Perhaps a probabilistic argument is more likely to succeed:

1. If at least one instance of evil is gratuitous, then this is not "the best of all possible worlds."
2. It is highly likely that at least one instance of evil is gratuitous.
3. Therefore, it is highly likely that this is not "the best of all possible worlds."

4. Of course, the definition of "gratuitous" might just be a form of question-begging.

5. Returning to #1 above, perhaps the answer involves an inversion the Ontological Argument. Although I cannot yet conceive how.

6. Ultimately, the problem of the imbalance in perspectives is a form of self-directed ad hominem. It may be logically defensible that every instance of evil is somehow necessary for a greater good, but it's difficult to argue the point without seeming damned callous.

36 arguments, 37 disappointments

If each of the 36 arguments for God's existence is underwhelming, well, that's disappointment enough. But there's an additional letdown: the book subjecting all 36 to scrutiny is a mildly comic novel--and a very badly written one at that.

It's not like Cass Seltzer to be out in the middle of an icy night, lost in thought while losing sensation in his extremities. Excitement had gotten the better of him. He had lain in his empty bed for hours, mind racing, until he gave up and crawled out from under the luxe comforter that his girlfriend Lucinda Mandelbaum had brought with her when she moved in with him at the end of June. This comforter has pockets for the hands and feet and a softness that's the result of impregnation with aloe vera. As a man, Cass had been skeptical, but he's become a begrudging believer in Lucinda's comforter, and in her Tempur-Pedic pillow, too, suffused with the fragrance of her coconut shampoo, making it all the more remarkable that he'd forsake his bed for this no-man's stretch of frigid night....

Lucinda's away tonight, away for the entire bleak week to come. Cass is missing Lucinda in his bones, missing her in the marrow that's presently crystallizing into ice. She's in warmer climes, at a conference in Santa Barbara on "Non-Nash Equilibria in Zero-Sum Games." Among these equilibria is one that's called the "Mandelbaum Equilibrium," and it's Cass's ambition to have the Mandelbaum Equilibrium mastered by the time he picks her up from the airport Friday night.

"Cass Seltzer" and "Lucinda Mandelbaum" and "impregnation with aloe vera" are trying too hard. "Bleak week" isn't trying hard enough. And the present tense is simply wrong.

are you a true believer?

Eugene Volokh, earlier this week, passed along some thoughts from an anonymous writer familiar with American immigration law. The subject: how some immigration officials determine whether folks who seek asylum religious persecution are, in fact, sincere in their faith.

Some standard questions asked by TAs to establish Christian bonafides:

Who is Jesus Christ?

What is your favorite story from the Bible?

What is your favorite prayer? Can you recite that prayer or a part of that prayer?

These seem like rather basic questions, but it is astounding how often Christian claimants cannot answer them. It is also fairly easy to spot the respondents who have been coached since they know one and only one story from the Bible, which is inevitably short-handed as: "water to wine." This is a reference to Jesus' first public miracle at a wedding in Cana and is considered an anti-Shibboleth by TAs and many IJs. Most frequently, Chinese applicants can name only this Bible story, as a result of being coached by the smugglers they use to enter the United States. Similarly, applicants who have been coached will say "the Lord's Prayer" is their favorite, and then recite some variation of the traditional Catholic grace before a meal (i.e. not the Lord's Prayer). The smugglers abroad and "immigration consultants" here in the United States are not very imaginative and have no real interest in their victims, so these responses do not change that often.

Worth reading in full; many of the comments are insightful as well. Fascinating on cultural, linguistic, legal, epistemological, and theological levels.

easily offended

Don't believe in God? You are not alone.

Apparently, this sentiment offends the Governor of Iowa.

Gov. Chet Culver weighed in on the controversial Des Moines bus ad that has been yanked after multiple complaints.

“I was disturbed, personally, by the advertisement and I can understand why other Iowans were also disturbed by the message that it sent,” Culver said.

The question will likely become a legal battle, Culver said. He deferred questions of whether the group deserves the same free speech rights as Christian organizations to advertise on the buses to the Iowa Attorney General.

Culver also declined to answer if he would also have gotten off the bus had he been a rider, but noted that he would have been offended by the ad’s message.

What, exactly, is Governor Culver offended by? The notion that atheists exist? The notion that atheists exist openly? The notion that atheists have free speech? The notion that some atheists feel isolated in the Corn Belt?

Even if Culver is "disturbed" by any of the above, he has to know that this is an open-and-shut matter of viewpoint discrimination prohibited under the First Amendment--never mind the Constitution of the state of Iowa. Culver, in pretending otherwise, and refusing to stand up for the rights of all Iowans, has revealed himself to not only be a bigot, but a political coward.



Update: The ads are going back on the buses. Better yet, the advertising policy is being rewritten to better reflect First Amendment rights. No thanks to Culver.

a prophet with honor in his hometown

Update: Well, gee, thanks, ESPN, for letting other websites embed your videos for mere moments.

LeBron James, messiah at 24. (Jesus at least had the good sense to wait until 30 before shaking things up.)

these three remain: faith, hope, and justice

Recently I've been blogging (too much, one might say) about the National Forensic League's March/April vigilantism resolution:

Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

In an otherwise unrelated blog post by my brother, he gives counsel to a Christian frustrated by a perceived lack of divine inaction in the face of earthly injustice. Matt writes,

Then we come to the problem of lack of fulfillment. The question we must ask ourselves is on what terms we would see justice done–on ours or God's? We pray “Thy Kingdom come,” but if we set the terms for its coming than we shall certainly miss it. The Lord’s justice, in fact, may sometimes be hidden from our sight. We are not allowed to know everyone’s stories, including those who hurt us.

I would suggest, then, that you not give up seeking the Lord’s justice here and now, but if anything renew your efforts. But ensure you are seeking the Lord’s justice, for a transgression has been committed against His child, within the boundaries of His kingdom, and it is much his responsibility as it is his right to avenge it.

Quite unintentionally, my brother makes a formative Christian case against vigilantism: it is too likely to be motivated by vengeance, rather than by what he calls a "purified" desire for justice. Moreover, beyond merely straying into the government's turf, the vigilante risks tampering in God's domain.

So, in a manner of speaking, vigilantism is a matter of faith--and doubt. For the vigilante, "justice delayed is justice denied." But in seeking redress, she places too much faith in her own knowledge of the law, and of the guilt of the accused, and of the best means at her disposal. She doubts the government's potential to ever punish the crime or restore the rule of law. And, ultimately, the vigilante lacks patience to wait for God's timing. After all, vengeance is His, and He will repay.

Update: My brother's further thoughts on the subject turn the sketch into a painting.

Bio-Dome evangelism

Bio-Dome. For most of us, it's a scarring experience, an inextricable, unforgettable trauma.

For Stephen Baldwin, it was part of God's plan.

I didn't know it ten years ago when I agreed to become Doyle Johnson, but God had already called me both to know Him personally and to impact the youth culture in America with the Good News of Jesus Christ. I didn't know it because I didn't know Jesus at the time. One of the reasons kids will listen to me today is because they recognize me from the movies. But not just any movie. One movie: Bio-Dome.

God had me make this film to give me the platform that would later become my life's work. At the time I just wanted to goof off with Pauly Shore for a couple of months. God knew that, and He also knew the plans He had for my life, plans He made sure came to pass.

I suppose the ultimate conundrum of theodicy, the Problem of Evil Movies, has been cracked right in half.

counting coup and the desecration debacle

PZ Myers acquired a consecrated host and desecrated it, along with a page from the Qur'an and The God Delusion. His point: "Nothing must be held sacred." Not a blessed wafer, not a holy book, not an atheistic screed. His action prompted my brother to ponder,

My question is whether Myers’ iconoclasm is rooted in the same sort of religious impulse as the iconoclasts you mentioned. As best I can tell, it is. Myers, after all, is doing a bit more than making a truth-claim. It’s one thing to say the idol has no power–it’s quite another to tear it down as a demonstration of its impotence.

Matt's armchair anthropologizing made me think of a story I heard a couple summers ago.

An indigenous Canadian tour guide was explaining his people's custom of "counting coup." Wikipedia explains it just like he did:

Counting coup was a battle practice of Native Americans of the Great Plains. A nonviolent demonstration of bravery, it consisted of touching an enemy warrior, with the hand or with a coup stick, then running away unharmed. Risk of injury or death was involved, should the other warrior respond violently. The phrase "counting coup" can also refer to the recounting of stories about battle exploits.

It can also involve stealing items from the enemy.

To illustrate the latter version, the guide told the story of a relative, who, in the recent past, went to visit the Pope in the Vatican. While there, he surreptitiously stole a hat, and got away with it. By taking something from a powerful man, he achieved a contemporary coup.

Bravado, testosterone, adrenaline, showmanship, roguery, and spirit: the coup-taking impulse can't be reduced to a single impulse, but requires them all.

I'm not claiming Myers destroyed a consecrated host in that same vein, even though his story of the deed bears many of the hallmarks, including the desire to tell the tale around the blog-fire. My only point is that human motivation is complex.

One might even say irreducible.

Update: I almost forgot the incident that prompted the entire ordeal, which, to employ my extended armchair anthropologizing, situates Myers' action in a sociopolitical context.

NoSpace for atheists

Previously, aesthetic and snobbish reasons were enough to keep me away from MySpace forever. Now refusing to join the worst website in the world has acquired a moral dimension: MySpace has deleted an atheist / agnostic page just because some Space-cases find it offensive.

the week in lies and ties

In the same week hackers declared war on the lyingest cult that ever culted, and America was introduced to the pseudoscience of televised lie detection for fun and profit, and two journalistic nonprofits counted up 935--no more, no less--"false statements" Bush et. al. made justifying the Iraq War, and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama cast aspersions on each other's characterizations....

In this very same week Tussaud's began dumping its un-wax-museum-quality heads on collectors everywhere.


Theme!


[Ties from Tuesday and Thursday of this week.]

weekend recap with Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise is shilled for, and shills for, Scientology and "LRH technology." Weirdness galore in these bizarre and highly addictive videos. [via Slate]


McClane! McBain! McCain!


Endured and enjoyed the Federal Way tournament. Worst / best quote I heard, regarding political assassination's chaotic aftermath: "That would be killing the head, and leaving the wriggling body to figure it out." Synonyms for "raising": upping, highering, and highering up.


One more teacher learns the hard way that camera phones are your worst pedagogical nightmare.

A Boulder teen has been arrested for using his cellphone camera to snag a teacher's computer password and change math scores for himself and 48 other students.

"He said he was changing grades just enough to ensure that if a student didn't do well on the final, their grades wouldn't be impacted," Boulder police spokeswoman Sarah Huntley said today.

The 16-year-old Fairview High School student, who wasn't identified because he is a juvenile, was arrested Wednesday and faces a felony charge for tampering with the grades.

Better and worse news: most younguns aren't as techno-savvy as you might think. You stereotyper.

[First link via Obscure Store]


Listen to Sean Paul, have a seizure. But science has the cure. (Not sure if there's a similar procedure possible for "Exploding Head syndrome.")

Huckabee's theocentric constitutionalism

Some folks are stunned and upset about Mike Huckabee's statement that we should change the Constitution to conform to God's laws.


There should be little surprise: Huckabee said roughly the same thing months ago at the Value Voters summit.

When I hear people say, "Oh, we don't want to change the Constitution, we don't want to amend it," well it was meant to be amended. But let me give you another thought. I'm very tired of hearing people who are unwilling to change the Constitution, but seem more than willing to change the holy word of God as it relates to the definition of marriage.... We do not have the right to move the standards of God to meet new cultural norms. We need to move the cultural norms to meet God's standards.

Mike Huckabee and "acts of God"

I find this story from a decade ago almost unbelievable.

The Arkansas Legislature scrambled today to rewrite a bill intended to protect storm victims after Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, objected to language describing such natural phenomena as tornadoes and floods as "acts of God."

Mr. Huckabee said that signing the legislation "would be violating my own conscience" inasmuch as it described "a destructive and deadly force as being 'an act of God.'" The Governor, a Republican, said the legislation was an otherwise worthy bill with objectives he shared.

Mr. Huckabee did not veto the bill but instead asked that it be recalled by the General Assembly. He suggested that the phrase "acts of God" be changed to "natural disasters...."

Governor Huckabee's explained his objections in a letter to the bill's authors, saying: "I feel that I have indeed witnessed many 'acts of God,' but I see His actions in the miraculous sparing of life, the sacrifice and selfless spirit in which so many responded to the pain of others."

Theologically shallow and politically irresponsible. That's Mike Huckabee.

church is like, cool, man

Way cool:

During what REUNION Christian Church calls its "gatherings," the pastor, Hank Wilson, proved deft at weaving in elements from pop culture without seeming trite or like he's pandering. The worship team played a Death Cab for Cutie song in between sets of contemporary praise ballads. He played a clip from Good Will Hunting to illustrate a point about intimacy. And when Wilson referenced a dated Saturday Night Live skit of Eddie Murphy channeling Buckwheat, he had a solution for all the young congregants looking lost: "YouTube it."

I suppose linking and quoting is commentary enough.

meet the Coen brothers

The Onion's primer on the Coen brothers--which, given their resurgence with No Country for Old Men, was guaranteed to arrive sometime soon--is now available, and mostly excellent. One thing it misses, though, is the duo's religious aesthetic. With their persistent exploration of themes of sin, redemption, apocalypse, evil, and existence, and with much of their oeuvre showing a clash between rationalism and spiritualism--often in Gothic style--they're the closest living replicas of Flannery O'Connor.

defining down the divine

Joe Carter, after Roy Clouser, makes an assertion that not only falls flat, but in doing so, makes a pedestal for a lovely pun. Just wait.

Carter, probably responding to the blogosphere buzz over John Allen Paulos' article on religiously-informed mathematics, writes,

A belief is a religious belief, says Clouser, provided that (1) It is a belief in something(s) or other as divine, or (2) It is a belief concerning how humans come to stand in relation to the divine. The divine, according to Clouser, is whatever is "just there." He contends that self-existence is the defining characteristic of divinity, so that the control of theories by a belief about what is self-existent is the same as control by a divinity belief and thus amounts to religious control of all theories.

Whether we refer to it as being self-existent, uncaused, radically independent, etc., it is the point beyond which nothing else can be reduced. Unless we posit an infinite regress of dependent existences, we must ultimately arrive at an entity that fits the criteria for the divine.

Different traditions, religions, and belief systems may disagree about what or who has divine status, or whether such an ontological concept should be considered a "religious belief." But what they all agree upon is that something has such a status. A theist, for instance, will say that the divine is God while a materialist will claim that matter is what fills the category of divine. Therefore, if we examine our concepts in enough detail, we discover that at a deeper level we're not agreeing on what the object is that we're talking about. Our explanations and theories about things will vary depending on what is presupposed as the ultimate explainer. And the ultimate explainer can only be the reality that has divine status.

I find it fascinating that Clouser and Carter don't see the slick rhetorical move in the definition. If the "divine" is defined into "what is 'just there,'" why use such a loaded word? The answer: it's just a more sophisticated way to say, "Atheism (or naturalism) is a religion." And, as others have famously pointed out, not-stamp-collecting is a hobby.

If Clouser were intellectually honest* I wish he'd use a more neutral term: Being, perhaps, or The Ground. I'd prefer the latter. Naturalists may love the universe, but they don't worship The Ground she walks on.

Don't say you weren't warned.



*See comments below.

seeing Jesus in Osama

The image:


As the viewer moves from side to side, the image changes from Jesus to Osama bin Laden.

The artist's explanation:

"But I just ask people to think about it a little bit more deeply because it is a very loaded work which means that there are so many different meanings...

What I was thinking about is, well, what would happen to the stories about this man over thousands of years. Could that possibly lead to someone with a cult-like status....

Immediately people are seizing on what they see as the most controversial, that I am comparing the two....

But I could actually be saying it is a juxtaposition of good and evil which I see as the base level reading of that work. But then on a more sophisticated level you could perhaps look how it could be an image which is a cautionary tale, asking the question do we have to be a little bit more careful about what we focus on in the here and now."

The outraged response:

The Prime Minister Johns Howard has branded the work "gratuitously offensive" to Christians.

If the art work is "saying" that Jesus is morally equivalent to Osama Bin Laden--like the moron who declared Jesus to be history's first suicide bomber--then yes, it's offensive.

But is that its message?

What I find most fascinating about this controversy is how quickly people control the interpretation, deciding exactly what it means despite the artist's stated intent. We are natural "reader response" theorists. What it means is what it means to me.

Consider, though, an alternate, plausible interpretation of the artwork. "Love your enemies," said Jesus. "Pray for those who persecute you." Such sentiment led believers like Mother Teresa to enjoin Christians to "see Jesus in all, and to be Jesus to all."

Can a Christian see Jesus in Osama bin Laden? If that were the intent of the artwork, would its image still be "gratuitously offensive?"



[via Andrew Bolt via Instapundit]

the politics of prayer

A fan of the blog sends along this video, in which Democratic presidential hopefuls--Mike Gravel and John Edwards excepted--sound pretty much indistinguishable from their Republican rivals. I'll admit I was a little taken aback by Edwards' frank admission that "I don't think you can prevent bad things from happening through prayer."

What I wrote about Bush's public faith a year and a half ago is largely applicable here:

Bush's platitudes look rather pale next to Lincoln's bold, unabashedly Biblical theologizing. Lincoln speaks not just from another time, but from another planet, a place steeped in old-time religion. Lincoln's God isn't just a concept, but a fire-breathing person with a will in the world.

When it comes to Bush, "theocrat" is a lazy epithet, like calling Good Charlotte's music "punk rock." Sure, it sounds punk-esque, but it's soulless and watery, tailored for mass consumption, entirely too agreeable. It's what a shallow society wants--and deserves--in its pop and its politics.

Mitt Romney's heart is worn from changing

And you thought John Kerry was a flip-flopper. Romney's switched sides on abortion, gay rights, and gun control, and now he's flipping between theory and practice on immigration.

In recent days, Mitt Romney has assailed Rudy Giuliani for maintaining a "sanctuary" city for illegal immigrants in New York and has pledged that as president he would reduce federal funding to "sanctuary" cities. But as governor of Massachusetts, Romney led a state that had several sanctuary cities and he took no action to cut their funding in order to pressure them into changing their policies toward illegal immigrants.

I anticipate Romney's coming out as a Southern Baptist in a month or two, claiming his time as a Mormon was "just a phase."

Update 8/22: In response, my brother writes,

Jim contends Mitt’s another Kerry. It’s not clear, though, that the case is the same at all. After all, when it comes to pro life issues at least, Mitt has been consistent in the bills he signed.

No mention of Romney's two-time change of heart: once to the "safe and legal" camp, after a relative died from an illegal abortion, and once back to a strict pro-life position, after being convinced through a debate on cloning. If that were his only flop, I'd be inclined to give Romney the benefit, but there's a pattern--a pattern that otherwise goes unaddressed. Call me heartless and cynical, but Romney's double switcheroo has all the appearances of political gamesmanship. (Added: My misreading of the link made it seem that Romney initially switched to the pro-choice camp sometime in the early 90s--but as Romney describes in the video linked below, up until his recent conversion, his support for "safe and legal" abortions had been consistent since at least the 1960s.)

I'll grant one thing, though: his words defending his gubernatorial record don't bring to mind John Kerry.

"As governor, I indicated that I would not change the law as it related to abortion. I would keep it the same. I have had roughly four provisions that have reached my desk which would have changed the laws as they relate to abortion, all of which would have expanded abortion rights. I vetoed each of those. My record as governor has been very clearly a pro-life record."

Instead, they're positively Clintonian.

Update II: In this YouTube video of the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial debate, Romney defends his pro-choice cred. He is smooth.

Update III: My brother responds, but doesn't exactly inspire::

...personally, Mitt has always held conservative opinions but has thought that his political position needs to represent the will of the people that elect him.

Now that's integrity.

the prayer of a self-righteous man

Kent Hovind might be a weasely tax dodger, but he's got nothin' on this pastor:

Wiley S. Drake, a Buena Park pastor and a former national leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, called on his followers to pray for the deaths of two leaders of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The request was in response to the liberal group's urging the IRS on Tuesday to investigate Drake's church's nonprofit status because Drake endorsed former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for president on church letterhead and during a church-affiliated Internet radio show.

Drake said Wednesday he was "simply doing what God told me to do" by targeting Americans United officials Joe Conn and Jeremy Leaming, whom he calls the "enemies of God."

"God says to pray imprecatory prayer against people who attack God's church," he said. "The Bible says that if anybody attacks God's people, David said this is what will happen to them.... Children will become orphans and wives will become widows."

Apparently Drake has never seen the difference between what one prays for and what one gets.


[via Obscure Store and PZ]