Rhetoric and reality -- atheism or empiricism?

Conversation Side Conversation
,
1

This post was originally intended as a more generalised follow-up to my more specific rebuttal of Dan’s less-than-well-judged and arguably ad hominem attack on me. However, as that first post has been stuck in moderation, for several hours after a later post of mine made it through, I have decided to post this to a new thread independently.

I think you are wrong in saying that it was “atheists” that “Rope didn’t write this article for”, Dan.

What he “didn’t write this article for” was Empiricists.

This is somewhat of a problem when you are posting it for a science audience – as if your audience are not empiricists (at least to a degree), then what are they doing in science? Science is an inherently empirical endeavor.

I would also note that both atheists and theists can be empiricists.

Per Wikipedia:

In philosophy, empiricism is an epistemological view which holds that true knowledge or justification comes only or primarily from sensory experience and empirical evidence.[1] It is one of several competing views within epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricists argue that empiricism is a more reliable method of finding the truth than purely using logical reasoning, because humans have cognitive biases and limitations which lead to errors of judgement.[2] Empiricism emphasizes the central role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions.[3] Empiricists may argue that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sensory experiences.[4]

It is the Empiricist in me that when, at the start of his article, Rope quotes prominent philosopher Holmes Rolston III as stating:

that in addition to being “random, contingent, blind, disastrous, wasteful, indifferent, selfish, cruel, clumsy, ugly, full of suffering, and, ultimately, death,” the evolutionary process can also be fairly characterized as “orderly, prolific, efficient, selecting for adaptive fit, exuberant, complex, diverse, regenerating life generation after generation.”

… my first thought was not to admire Rolston’s prose, but to ask myself what did you base that claim on Holmes? Was it based on first-hand observation (or even second-hand accounts) of the lives of actual animals? Or was it based on contemplation of the thoughts of other philosophers? If the latter, it would seem to be the worst possible form of hearsay – that for which neither the original, purportedly-factual, source, nor the number of retellings, is known. Its rhetorical, rather than factual, style – juxtaposing oxymoronic adjectives such as “wasteful” and “efficient”, would suggest the latter.

(Whilst Rolston’s article does cite biologist Ernst Mayr and naturalist John Muir, both are cited simply for a sense of generalised ‘wonder at nature’, rather than for any insight into animal suffering. The only empirical citation for the latter would seem to be the (it seems near-obligatory in philosophical discussion the ‘Problem of Natural Evil’) reference to Darwin and parasitism.)

And on this issue, I cannot say that the rest of Rope’s article improved on this start.

This apparent complete disregard for empiricism (rather than any disregard for atheism) would be my greatest problem with the article – and why I consider the world it is describing as “hypothetical” and “fictional.”

So please Dan, don’t blame my fellow atheists for my negative view of Rope’s article.

2

Agreed.

Evolution can’t be both random and orderly, or clumsy and efficient, at least not at the same time. It definitely can’t be selfish, since it hasn’t got a self.

3

I have been accused, by @Dan_Eastwood, of “overreaching” and “hav[ing] an axe to grind”, so I will take the liberty of expanding my point in my OP to explain why I find the line of argumentation contained in Rope’s article to be deeply problematical.

@sfmatheson and @misterme987, as you’ve also expressed positive views of Rope’s argument, this post is also aimed at you as well.

As a preliminary, if any of you three gentlemen can point to how Rope bases his argument on empirical evidence, this will largely undercut my line of thinking below.

  1. If Rope’s argument does not rely on empirical evidence of the balance of suffering in the real world, then (if it holds at all), it must hold – that the lives of animals are ‘good’, regardless of this evidence.

  2. If it holds regardless of this evidence, it must hold that lives of animals are ‘good’, even if these lives were continuous torment.

  3. This would lead me to wonder what other atrocities you might be willing to allow an argument to redefine as ‘good’.

  4. At which point, it would seem to be a good time to ask you gentlemen what continent you are on, so I can stay as far way from you as possible.

In case you haven’t caught on, the above was a variant of a argumentum ad absurdum – in this case arguing that an argument that would justify something horrifically bad is a horrifically bad argument.

My wording may have been a bit fanciful (it is an argument “to absurdity” after all), but my intent is very serious – that an argument that purports to be able to make claims about the real world, without basing those claims on empirical evidence of the real world, is deeply problematical – and can lead to some very dark places. I therefore do not consider it unreasonable to view such lines of argument with deep skepticism and suspicion.

(A counter-argument could be attempted, that the opinions of prominent theologians on which Rope bases his argument on, might be considered to have a basis, however loose, in empirical reality. I would counter that not a few prominent theologians have had some fairly extreme opinions – e.g. Martin Luther on Jews, John Knox on the place of women in society.)

4

Well, I don’t have any strong views on Rope’s argument. I think he raised some interesting points in his article, but I also think you and @Roy brought up good objections. I agree it’s not possible to determine the amount of happiness and suffering that animals experience, and that it’s fallacious to bring up animal conservation efforts in support of a positive balance.

However, I also don’t think the happiness/suffering balance is really relevant to the PoE. The PoE means that in order for the God of classical theism to exist, there can be no gratuitous evil. Thus, it doesn’t really matter how much suffering there is, it matters if any of that suffering is gratuitous. I suppose you could argue that the more suffering there is, the more likely it’s gratuitous, but I’m inclined to think that insofar as any animal suffering exists, it can all be explained under a single theodicy (whatever that might be).

Note that this is against both Rope’s original argument and your critique of it.

1 Like
5

Returning to the main theme of this thread, I think both Rope’s book The Compatibility of Evolution and Design, and his efforts to defend it on this forum, suffered from a similar flaw.

In neither could I discern any sign that Rope was at all cognizant of the mountain of empirical evidence supporting evolution, or the fact that design advocates had been credibly accused of misrepresenting this evidence.

Rope seemed to regard it as an issue simply of dueling arguments – and thus an issue that he, as a philosopher, was in a legitimate position to adjudicate, without any need to to understand the underlying evidence.

I’m not sure if I could accurately characterise this viewpoint as “Post-modernist” – but it would seem to be in that general vicinity.

It is not a viewpoint that I have much sympathy for. And I get the strong impression that I am not alone on this on this forum.

7

I would whole-heartedly agree with this.

Whilst I would be willing to admit that some level of suffering is, in all probability, unavoidable, I am deeply skeptical of arguments that seek to use this to justify a non-specific level of suffering (Plantinga’s ‘Transworld Depravity’ argument comes to mind.

I thinking is that such arguments could easily be flipped to claim that an Omnimalevolent creator could have created the universe and that some level of good is unavoidable. T|his to my mind makes such arguments uncompelling.

I don’t think I ever argued that a positive balance is sufficient for the PoE to be solved. I’m not sure that even Rope makes that claim.

1 Like
8

@sfmatheson: my whole line of argument above is about why he “needs it to be” and why " an argument that purports to be able to make claims about the real world, without basing those claims on empirical evidence of the real world, is deeply problematical – and can lead to some very dark places."

If you are able to articulate why you don’t think he needs to base his claims about the real world on evidence of the real world, then I’d welcome hearing it.

(Just as I would welcome an articulation of why Rope’s assertion of Nagashawa’s “inconsistency” was not “baseless”.)

But if your contribution to the defense of Rope’s position is simply to lob insults, then I’d be better walking over to the nearest primary school for a response, than addressing my comments at you. So I will leave you in peace.

9

And likewise. Thanks.

FWIW I don’t care about this topic enough to invest in explaining why few of the “critiques” of Rope on this topic (PoE and whether evolution “makes it worse”) are relevant or even worthy of a response.

BUT I care about not treating people like shit or being insulting or dismissive. Maybe we can leave it at this: I see your comments as tangential, on a topic I care almost nothing about. It’s really not personal. And I’ll add this FWIW: I can’t respect Christianity, not because of turtles being eaten without anesthesia, but because of people fearing for their lives (or losing their lives) because the “god” of Christianity left instructions for his followers to kill them. Now THAT’S the problem of evil that I care about, summarized as: the problem of evil is that the Christian god is evil.

Be well.

1 Like
10

Yes, I seem to recall watching a video by the YouTuber “Genetically Modified Skeptic” on this exact topic (or maybe it was another atheist YouTuber). Every theodicy meant to reconcile evil and a good God could be modified to reconcile good and an evil god, which weakens all theodicies. Then again, I don’t think any theodicies are intended to convince people of the existence of a good God, but to explain how the existence of such is compatible with evil. Whether one believes in a good God or no god (or an evil god) will depend on one’s presuppositions.

As an aside, would you mind me changing the title of this thread to “Empiricism and the Problem of Evil” which seems to better describe the discussion taking place here?

And this raises another problem, which I think Christians should consider more thoughtfully, and that’s the issue of “Christians behaving badly.” If the Christian God exists, as I believe he does, why reveal his will in such an imperfect way that many of his followers commit evil in his name? This is a currently very relevant example:

Apparently the Christian God revealed his will in such an imperfect way that these claimed followers of his are literally enslaving people in exchange for a place to live (which is somehow legal), and are lobbying for the criminalization of existence. Now a Christian apologist could argue that these ‘Christians’ actions aren’t based on their religion, but they would presumably also argue that the charity performed by Christians is evidence for Christianity’s righteousness (see @vjtorley’s recent argument). In what way can it be shown that the evil performed by Christians isn’t from their religion, but the goodness performed by them is?

Edit: Then again perhaps this is expected on the Christian account, since Jesus himself said that many would come in his name and their fruits would be evil? This, however, ruins any “argument from charity” for Christianity, because there’s no empirical way to determine whether such ‘fruits’ are coming from ‘true Christians’ or not. I’d appreciate if you could respond, @vjtorley, since you’re the one who earlier made this argument.

11

That’s not what I was trying to say, sorry if I was unclear. I thought that both Rope and you were assuming that, while it wasn’t sufficient, a more positive happiness/suffering balance would alleviate the problem of evil somewhat (and Rope was arguing for such a balance while you were arguing against). I’m challenging that assumption, as I don’t think the happiness/suffering balance matters at all.

2 Likes
12

I do think that humans ultimately bear the responsibility for monstrous actions like those and cannot ultimately point at a deity and blame her/him/it. But “Christians behaving badly” is not my reason for rejecting their god. I cannot describe the character in Deuteronomy 20 as anything but a monster. That character is the “god” who “inspired” the writings themselves. You did not intend the focus of “Christians behaving badly” to be a red herring to draw attention away from the monster of the bible, but that is the result when Christians play the “No True Scotsman” card.

13

I certainly didn’t. I meant to bring it up as an additional problem for Christians, along with the problem of natural evil and the problem of the evil god of the Bible (which is what you brought up). As a Christian myself, I don’t really know what to make of all these problems, and I’m okay with that for now, but I do want to be honest about their existence.

Edit: I should add that, as a determinist who believes that all things are the direct result of causes that preceded them, these problems kind of blend into each other for me. Everything that’s happened was in some sense determined by God at the beginning of creation, so he’s the ultimate cause of natural evil, and the one who directly commanded evil acts (e.g. in Deut 20), and the cause of “Christians behaving badly.” I guess that makes my views even harder to justify in some ways, but I also think it helps at least a little by blending all these problems into one big problem, which could conceivably be covered by a single theodicy.

3 Likes
14

Yes I would mind, as my inclusion of this post would then be off-topic.

A large part of my point is whether such issues about “reality” can be decided through “rhetoric” and (nearly) pure philosophical rationalism. Hence I would prefer if those terms (or something similar) remain in the title.

1 Like
15

Okay, then if the discussion gets too off-topic for the title of the thread I can just split the deviant comments into a new thread.

1 Like
16

You would seem to be entering into the territory of the problem of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

17

I was criticizing the idea of distinguishing between so-called true Christians and false Christians, which is why I put ‘true Christians’ in scare quotes.

1 Like
18

I should apologise for my careless phrasing. I was not suggesting that you were wrong, just that the NTS fallacy helps demonstrate how these sorts of judgements are problematical.

If I was feeling adventurous, I might suggest that Christians who are not willing to take onboard Jesus’ teachings concerning helping those less well off are “not ‘true’ Christians”. But then I’d have to ask myself if I would be willing to do the same thing for those not onboard with Jesus’ teachings on Divorce-and-Remarriage and that “whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” – and would feel obliged to, somewhat unwillingly, pull in my horns about making such judgements.

1 Like
19

Coming back to this topic, how would you think the question of “gratuitous evil” can be addressed? Do you think it is possible to address it without addressing empirical evidence? Why do you posit the existence of your (unknown) “single theodicy”?

My first inclination would be to attempt to address it through ‘edge examples’ – potential examples of gratuitous evil, and trying to decide if they were truly gratuitous, or in some way necessitated.

One example that springs immediately to mind is the malaria parasite. It is not difficult to argue that a world without it would have less suffering. But does evolution necessitate that something would have had to evolve to fill its niche? If so, is the malaria parasite (a reasonable approximation of) the least-suffering potential holder of this niche?

I will admit that I’m in no way qualified to answer any of these questions. But I, personally (and my empiricist hat may be showing again), find that such questions illuminate the PoE more than abstract theodicies do.

1 Like
20

I think you would be right here. It is too easy to get tunnel vision and argue against the argument that is right in front of you, rather than stepping back and realising that, right or wrong, this argument may be irrelevant to the real question.

1 Like