Theodicy and evolution

The notion of theodicy has been one of the most debated and discussed topics in Christianity for centuries. Here's the Wiki-definition:

Theodicy ( /θiːˈɒdɪsi/ from Greek theos - "god" + dike - "justice") is a theological or philosophical study which attempts to justify God’s intrinsic nature of omni-benevolence (all loving), omniscience (all knowing) and omnipotence (all powerful), despite the existence of evil which would otherwise stand to refute God's existence.

One of the simplest ways of reconciling this problem is to recognise that God has given us freedom. We have a choice in how we act and the choices we make have consequences. We can bring joy or sorrow, so you could say that suffering is the cost of freedom.

This is quite a straightforward concept when we are thinking about human action, but what about nature?

Nature has its own freedom. The laws are set and from then on the consequences are what they are. Tectonic plates move according to the laws of physics. In doing so they release minerals into the biosphere and help produce fertile ground. They are also the source of earthquakes, volcanoes and subsequent devastation.

Evolution helps us understand this natural freedom as applied to biology. Life parades a spectrum that befits its freedom of expression, from the beautiful forms on the wings of a butterfly, to the venomous poisons of the bite of a snake.

The philosophical question is why is this freedom so important?

The primate family tree

Its not so long ago that nature's genealogies were constructed by the painstaking cataloging and comparing of anatomical features. Whilst this technique has to a certain extent been successful it is too blunt an instrument for dissecting out the fine detail.

The genetic revolution has changed all that. In this recent paper scientists have taken a close look at the entire primate family:

We conduct a phylogenetic analysis to determine the origin, evolution, patterns of speciation, and unique features in genome divergence among primate lineages. The resultant phylogenetic tree is remarkably robust and unambiguously resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy. Our data provide a strong foundation for illuminating those genomic differences that are uniquely human and provide new insights on the breadth and richness of gene evolution across all primate lineages

.

The story unfolds over a period of about 90 million years and covers many different creatures. Some, like the orangutang, are seriously endangered now. One of the stand out features of the primate group is their brains. Being remarkably cerebral they have a large brain:body size ratio, and of course of all the primates in all the world there is one whose brain is bigger than them all!

Theistic Embryology?

This quote picks up on a theme I've written on before, but its better!

Why is there no controversy surrounding theistic embryology? Dissecting critical responses to theistic evolution.

Those who simultaneously express Christian belief and affirm evolutionary theory are said to espouse a position called "theistic evolution." The view holds the peculiar distinction of being reviled by both hard-line creationists (who call it "appeasement") and prominent atheist commentators (who deride it as fallacious). I argue that these critics typically fail to articulate objections that are specific to the view. Most creationist critics of theistic evolution object to one or both of these characteristics of the view: 1) its reliance on naturalistic explanation, a feature common to all scientific theorizing; or 2) its embrace of "random" causal events, a feature common to myriad scientific explanations. Most atheist critics of theistic evolution object to its openness to supernatural explanation, a feature of religious belief in general. Such criticisms, valid or not, fail to address anything specific to theistic evolution. In other words, attacks on theistic evolution are usually attacks on theism or attacks on evolution, but rarely represent specific criticisms of the theistic evolution position. To better understand the controversy surrounding theistic evolution, I propose that critiques of the position be considered in light of a lesser-known position we may (with tongue in cheek) call "theistic embryology." Theistic embryology describes the thinking of those who simultaneously express Christian belief and affirm basic theories in human developmental biology. Although the logic is indistinguishable from that of theistic evolution, the view is uncontroversial and the term "theistic embryology" is practically non-existent. I suggest that critiques of theistic evolution be subjected to the "theistic embryology test." Most critiques that claim to identify weaknesses in theistic evolution make arguments that are equally damaging to "theistic embryology" and so fail the test. Critiques that fail this whimsical test are likely to be arguments against belief, or against naturalistic explanation, and should be considered as such.

(http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2009/05/theistic-embryology-gathering-storm.html).


Thanks to Ken Gilmore for the find.

100 up!

February has been a hectic month, hence the lack of activity on this blog, but as the calendar prepares to turn over once more I've noticed that I have made 99 postings since the blog started. It is very satisfying to look back at all the information and ideas that have been collected together since its inception concerning this important topic.

A big thanks go to those who read it and chip in with occasional comments. I'm acutely aware that a lot of what I write is simply someone else's ideas re-articulated, so, to everyone I talk to or whose books I read, as they say in Yorkshire, "Ta!"

Moral Development

An interesting idea to think about is that of moral development. The general thesis is that human society and civilisation has developed morally over time. Take as an example the slave trade. Historically the slave trade has been a normal part of society but now, in the western world at least, it has been abolished.

We are not talking about individual moral development here, in fact you could make a good argument that individual morality is in decline, but this is about society in general. The concept is relevant to thinking about anthropology from a spiritual point of view.

The differences between Old Testament and New Testament ethics have often been remarked upon, to the point where some have even suggested that the God of the Old Testament is different to the God of the New.

This is where the suggestion of moral development comes in. God remains the same, his principles never change, but their outworking depends on the level of development of the people. This is exactly the same phenomenon that we see in parents all over the world. A parent may want to instil in their child the principles of kindness. When dealing with a toddler they might utilise the 'naughty step' to help the child consider when their actions have fallen short of the mark. Yet for teenage children this technique is likely to be ineffective. A reasoned discussion is probably more appropriate for them (though you could try putting them on the step afterwards as a last resort!) Loud and vocal anger is another good way of telling infants of the seriousness of their wrongdoing, but it is rarely as effective with older children.

If we imagine human society as an individual going through childhood and towards maturity then we can begin to understand why God seems different over time. The Mosaic Law came at a time where the people had no formal justice system, but things are very different now. Most countries have very sophisticated systems in place to keep law and order – society has developed. This development is more acutely apparent when we consider early man as the product millions of years of competition and communities of humans thrust together under the principles of survival of the fittest. The baseline of moral man is pretty low. Yet slowly, and surely, God has led humanity to the point where 'at just the right time' Christ came into the world. Human civilisation was finally ready to meet Immanuel.

An interesting question to ask is why individual morality hasn't developed in the same way as society has?

Do Bluetits Remember?

We have seen four springs living in our current house and 2010 was the first without Bluetits nesting in the box hanging from the brickwork. There is a sense of anticipation each year as the winter thaws and we wait expectantly. The endeavors of these tiny birds, and they do get tinier as the endeavor takes its toll, never fail to amaze us. Yet this year we were left disappointed.

Could it be that our regular family have sworn never to return? 2009 was a harrowing year.

There was one little fledgling that didn't make it. Perhaps it was the runt of the litter, perhaps it was genetically predestined not to make it, but when this baby Bluetit emerged from the security of its wooden cradle its first flight ended up on the hard floor of our patio. The plight was softened by the frantic fluttering of its wings, but once down there was no way of getting back up. Its only hope was to hide. It hid behind our plant-pots and it hid behind overhanging shrubs but by far the best place it found was between the folds of our deflated paddling pool. It stayed there for two days and nights yet encouragingly its parents refused to abandon it. They still nursed it, collected grubs for it, sang for it and waited upon it. We watched on, hoping that all this care would give it the strength to fly off one day.

That time came on the third day and it boldly hopped out of its hiding place...

... only for our neighbour's cat to hop out from behind the bushes and swallow it down whole.

The shrieks that went up in our household were enough to send the moggy scampering but the damage was already done. All that was we could do was watch the heartbreaking sight of the fledgling's parents singing for their child, searching for it in all the usual hiding places, staring in bemusement.

Nature red in tooth and claw.

An improbable bang

The Big Bang defies probability. How could an accident produce something so ordered? Roger Penrose tells us just how unlikely it is that we should have a universe that is compatible with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of

one part in 10 to the power of 1230.

This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full. Even if we were to write a "0" on each separate proton and each separate neutron in the entire universe - and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure - we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

Its important to say that Penrose's use of 'Creator' here is not in any theistic sense.