[Vincent Torley has posted this at Uncommon Descent. As many people who might like to respond, not the least among them Dr. Liddle herslf, are unable to do so directly, I reproduce it here. The rest of this post is written by Vincent Torley]
Over at The Skeptical Zone, Dr. Elizabeth Liddle has written a thought-provoking post, which poses an interesting ethical conundrum about the morality of creating sentient beings.
Dr. Liddle’s post was titled, Getting some stuff off my chest…., and its tone was remarkably conciliatory, as the following extracts reveal:
I don’t think that science has disproven, nor even suggests, that it is unlikely that an Intelligent Designer was responsible for the world, and intended it to come into existence.
I don’t think that science has, nor even can, prove that divine and/or miraculous intervention is impossible.
I think the world has properties that make it perfectly possible for an Intelligent Deity to “reach in” and tweak things to her liking – and that even if it didn’t, it would still be perfectly possible, given Omnipotence, just as a computer programmer can reach in and tweak the Matrix.
I don’t think that science falsifies the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient deity – at all.
Apparently, Dr. Liddle’s main reason for disbelieving in an “external disembodied intelligent and volitional deity” is a philosophical rather than a scientific one: she is “no longer persuaded that either intelligence or volition are possible in the absence of a material substrate.” Fair enough; but Dr. Liddle should tell us what she means by the word “material.” Does she mean: (a) composed of visible and/or tangible “stuff”; (b) having some (non-zero) quantity of mass-energy; (c) spatially extended, and inside our universe; (d) spatially extended, and inside some universe; (e) composed of parts; (f) behaving in accordance with the laws of Nature; or (g) behaving in accordance with some invariant set of mathematical laws? What is Dr. Liddle’s definition of “matter,” and why does Dr. Liddle believe that an intelligent being has to conform to that definition?
But the most interesting part of her post came in two paragraphs where she made it clear that while she regarded the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient deity as quite compatible with science, it was ludicrous to suggest that this deity might also be omnibenevolent:
I do think that the world is such that IF there is an omnipotent, omniscient deity, EITHER that deity does not have human welfare as a high priority OR she has very different ideas about what constitutes human welfare from the ones that most people hold (and as are exemplified, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), OR she has deliberately chosen to let the laws of her created world play out according to her ordained rules, regardless of the effects of those laws on the welfare of human beings, perhaps trusting that we would value a comprehensible world more than one with major causal glitches. In my case, her trust was well-placed…
I don’t think that it follows that, were we to find incontrovertible evidence of a Intelligent Creator (for instance, an unambiguous message in English configured in a nebula in some remote region of space, or on the DNA of an ant encased in amber millions of years ago) that that would mandate us in any way to worship that designer. On the basis of her human rights record I’d be more inclined to summon her to The Hague.
This is a little inconsistent. On the one hand, Dr. Liddle declares that she values “a comprehensible world” with no “causal glitches”; but at the same time, Dr. Liddle wishes that the Intelligent Creator, if she exists, would do more to promote human rights and alleviate suffering.
At any rate, here is the question I would like to ask Dr. Liddle. Suppose you were the Intelligent Creator of a world containing life. Suppose also that you have decided that your world should contain no “causal glitches” whatsoever: miraculous interventions are out of the question. Suppose, finally, that the laws of your world happen to dictate that any sentient beings in it will suffer and die, and suppose, also, that death in your world is absolutely final, with no hereafter. That goes for sapient beings as well: in your world, you only get one innings.
The life-forms that currently exist in your world include not only micro-organisms, but also complex animals, rather like our insects, which are capable of a rich variety of behavioral feats, but lack any kind of phenomenal consciousness: they react to environmental stimuli in a very sophisticated manner, but for them, there is no subjective feeling of “what it is like” to experience those stimuli. So far, everything is unfolding in accordance with your pre-ordained program.
Here’s my question for Dr. Liddle, and for skeptical readers. Given the above constraints, would you regard it as immoral to be the author of a program that eventually resulted in the appearance of:
(a) sentient beings capable of feeling pain, but with no self-awareness whatsoever;
(b) sentient beings with some rudimentary self-awareness;
(c) sapient beings capable of reasoning and language, as well as a rich sense of self-awareness?
Putting it another way, would it be better for an Intelligent Creator not to create a world of sentient (and/or self-aware and/or sapient) beings, than to create a world in which sentient / self-aware / sapient beings existed, but where all of these beings would undergo suffering (and where some of them would undergo a considerable degree of suffering), caused by the inexorable operation of the laws of Nature in that world? Or putting it as baldly as possible: if you were the Creator, would you deny us all the gift of existence, on the grounds that it would be immoral to create beings like us?
If your answer is that it would be immoral to create beings like us, then I would ask you to set out, as clearly as possible, the ethical principle which would be violated by the creation of beings like us.
And if it’s not the existence of suffering per se that you object to, but the degree of suffering, where do you draw the line, and why?
Over to you, Dr. Liddle…
[ETA correction to blockquotes – AF]
And why would anyone take those constraints as “given”?
Always with the presuppositions.
Glen Davidson
Vincent J. Torley is simply too cute, yet standard naive for the IDM. = ))
He openly distinguishes Uppercase ‘Intelligent Design’ from lowercase ‘intelligent design.’ This is too blunt for the usual DI-IDM obfuscation.
Because he, like Elizabeth, identifies an (Uppercase) Intelligent Creator/Designer as a theological question/theme, he thereby dismisses himself from defending the narrow IDT of the DI-IDM, which insists upon a ‘strictly natural scientific’ theory of ID.
Torley, a PhD himself, should rise to try to publish in credible venues (he admitted he has never published a single article in a peer-reviewed journal) rather than simply at a convenient, lazy, IDT-happy, activist, on-line place such as ‘Uncommon Descent’ blog.
Can we assume that he’ll never produce anything of wider value except for cleaving to a highly myopic collection of IDists and fellow, mainly anti-science, right-wing evangelicals while he lives safely as a well-funded English-language teacher in Japan? If you want my opinion, I would hope for more from/to Vincent J. Torley than that.
If Vincent Torley wants a response from Dr. Liddle, he should have the common decency to post his questions in a forum where she can respond. He should know that she is banned at UD and, further, that open discussion is impossible there given the administrator’s utter lack of respect for freedom of expression.
Torley should also know that he is able to post here at The Skeptical Zone, where the moderation is extremely light and comments are not deleted simply because they offend the moderators. (To my knowledge, only one, particularly vulgar, comment containing a not safe for work image has ever been removed.)
If Torley lacks the minimal intellectual courage necessary to venture out from behind Barry Arrington’s skirts, he doesn’t, in my opinion, deserve a response.
One of the alleged accomplishments of the putative Creator is the creation of a heaven free of death and suffering. So are we just the bad example, created as an object lesson?
I don’t think anything can be settled by these kinds of questions, but since I was asked.
petrushka,
It’s a very good question.
Here’s a related question I like to ask:
Many Christians argue that evil exists in the world because God granted free will to humans, and that he did so because the positive value of free will more than offsets the negative fact that free will allows us to sin.
However, most Christians hold that there is no sin in heaven. How is that possible, if humans still have free will there?
Christians can bite the bullet and stipulate that humans no longer have free will in heaven. But if free will isn’t important enough to have in heaven, for all eternity, then why was it so important for God to grant it to humans on earth? If free will isn’t important in heaven, then it would seem that God unnecessarily granted free will to humans on earth. He is thus responsible for the existence of sin on earth.
On the other hand, Christians can argue that people do have free will in heaven, but that they freely choose not to sin. That raises an obvious question: Why didn’t God create humans that way in the first place? If he had, then there would have been no sin in the world. By failing to do so, he is responsible for the presence of sin in the world.
Either way, God is reponsible for sin.
Christians, how do you resolve this problem? VJ Torley, how about you?
One could speculate, regarding free will, that God tosses us into the pool, and those that swim survive to the next round. Theistic Darwinism.
keiths,
If I remember the RK classes of my youth correctly, the (Protestant) answer was “this life is a test”. A discussion of omniscience and predestination would follow.
I find VJ Torley’s scenario rather sneaky. He wants to discuss omnibenevolence, but, by making a human the ‘creator’, he appears to be cheating by taking omnipotence/omniscience out of the equation. As I understood Lizzie’s point, she finds the three omni’s mutually inconsistent. I know I do.
As part of this sleight of hand, he elided from Lizzie’s “[no] major causal glitches” to “no causal glitches whatsoever; miraculous interventions are out of the question”; thus he is denying the (supposedly omnipotent) creator the ability of make any intervention at all, however difficult to detect.
I find the Protestant theology of my youth consistent, perhaps even plausible, with regard to sin and evil. But I find the idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator inconsistent with certain examples of suffering unrelated to evil.
If VJT wants to discuss “where do you draw the line, and why”, he’s welcome to pop over here for a conversation.
DNA_Jock,
I don’t think that solves the problem. For one thing, an omniscient God would know the results of the test without needing to perform it. Second, if the function of the test were to see if we would choose to sin, then there would be no need to continue the test beyond each person’s first sin. Third, if life is a test, why are some people tested so much more severely than others?
I could go on, and I will, if necessary. 🙂
Infant mortality suggests its not a very good test.
keiths,
Well, I never said it was a good answer.
😉
Wow. The sister thread at UD is quickly filling up with bad arguments.
For example, Eric Anderson writes:
You tell ’em, Eric! I say the same thing to aBunnyists:
Those who believe the Easter Bunny exists are hopeful that one day they will come to know Him in some measure, while those who insist there is no Easter Bunny are confident they already have a perfect knowledge of Him.
It’s really quite simple, folks. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent: Pick two.
I’d like to thank Dr Torley for his post, and reiterate the invitation to comment over here.
I’m a bit busy right now, but on first glance, I think Dr Torley has mistaken the grounds of my “philosophical” problem with an all-power creator, which is probably because I didn’t make it clear. I can fix the theodicy problem without too much difficulty.
It’s the mind-without-matter problem that led me to reject the idea.
cubist,
You missed mysterious. Skeptics! Always wanting things to be effable.
Do you know where I can read more about this “strictly natural scientific theory of ID“?
If it can be defended, it must have a position to defend. What is the position?
Barb @ UD says:
One wonders what choice a starving child has. I guess their parents or their parents’ parents must have offended the great one in the sky. Perhaps by eating the wrong sort of meat on the wrong day?
True, but omniscience doesn’t imply that She would know the result immediately. She might have to think it through.
The only logical (?) conclusion, then, is that we are the thoughts of the goddess and as soon as She realizes that this isn’t the best of all possible worlds, She’ll ponder a different one.
What happens to us is left as an exercise for the reader.
[ Given the long history of theology I’m sure this isn’t a new idea. Can anyone name this heresy? ]
It seems reasonable that we are god’s thoughts. Being omniscient, god thinks all possible things. Perhaps we should be thankful we are not the worst of all possible worlds.
Or perhaps we are.
Threads like this should be titled theIDiot and theodicy.
That’s a very broad definition of “reasonable” you’re wielding there, dude. Be careful not to cut yourself.
I see that Lizzie has left a reply. I repeat my questions:
(1) When you reject the possibility of a disembodied, immaterial God, how do you define “matter” or “embodied”?
(2) If you believe God has somehow wronged us by creating a world like this one, then on what grounds do you say that?
I don’t think anybody is rejecting the mere possibility.
Can you provide a quote? I doubt it.
That’s your strawman. Anything is possible, but it’s what you have evidence for that matters.
But if all you are after is an admission that “it’s possible” then hey, sure, it’s possible.
Ask a dying child who never had the chance to believe.
A better question would be, how do you define immaterial? What is immatter made of and what are its properties?
If immatter interacts with matter, what makes it im? We have at least two forms of matter and energy that are unobserved except for their interactions with matter. This is not actually a new kind of situation in physics.
Edit to correct spelling of made up words.
This seems to be an attempt at shifting the burden of proof. If you believe that an immaterial entity exists, you need to define what you mean and provide some objective, empirical evidence.
You could start by explaining how one might distinguish between “immaterial” and “nonexistent”.
ETA: Ninja’d by petrushka.
vjtorley,
See my earlier comment for one reason.
vjtorley,
Why did the Designer design Plasmodium falciparum?
Glen Davidson
Why are the most horrible, extended and painful deaths reserved for infants and small children?
This is not a question about the existence of God, but rather (assuming arguendo, that God exists) whether He is an entity worthy of worship.I have to assume that VJ isn’t so craven as the kiss the hems of a deity simply out of fear.
Now I can thinks of counter-arguments.
Perhaps this life is not so much a test as it is unimportant. A few decades divided by infinity is a very small number.
petrushka,
That doesn’t work either. If the sufferings of a lifetime can be neglected relative to eternity, then so can the sins of a lifetime.
Patrick,
I think it does. If there is something that She doesn’t know right now, then She is not omniscient right now.
It sounds a lot like Open Theism.
Allan,
An effable bird is worth two that are ineffable.
Hi KeithS,
Good question. According to Christian doctrine, the blessed in Heaven are not free to turn away from the Beatific Vision of God. They have made a final decision for God. As to why God didn’t make us perfect:
(1) libertarian freedom, considered in itself, is a good thing, which befits a rational creature;
(2) although God might have made all human beings impeccable from the get-go, He was certainly under no obligation to do so;
(3) I would also add that had God made human beings that way, their very identity as individuals would have been different. For a human being with libertarian free will, the only property which defines that person’s identity is their relation to their parents: I would not be “me” if I’d had a different father and mother. But if it is an essential property of me as an individual that I cannot fall into sin, then that fact also defines me, and becomes part of my identity. Putting it another way, if I had been made perfect from the start, then I would not have been “me,” but someone else, as the conditions defining my identity would have been different;
(4) thus I cannot wish myself to have been created perfect without wishing myself out of existence, which is metaphysically incoherent;
(5) hence to claim that the world would have been better had God made everyone impeccable from the beginning is mistaken, as it overlooks the vital question, “Better for whom – the individuals who exist in the perfect world or those who exist in the imperfect one?”;
(6) your argument against God’s goodness assumes that God is responsible for any evil which He could have prevented. But I would answer, “Responsible to whom?” Responsibilities are not free-floating; they are always directed at someone. God cannot be held responsible to an individual X for an evil that God could have prevented only by preventing the existence of X.
My two cents.
Okay, I can see the logic of that. It obviously follows that our goal as Her thoughts is to assist Her to achieve omniscience. Those who help the most are rewarded by being continuously rethought.
This is making as much sense as most religions already! Now to get some butts in pews…
You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.
— L. Ron Hubbard
Explain the value of libertarian free will to these kids:
Hi Vincent,
According to most Christians, they don’t turn away. However, I don’t think there’s universal agreement regarding whether they are free to turn away.
Let’s go with “not free”, arguendo, since that is your position.
You wrote:
If libertarian freedom is a good thing, befitting a rational creature, then why does God deny it to believers in heaven?
I’ll address your other points as time permits.
Touché.
That’s kind of like asking “So, how Calvinist are you?!” isn’t it? Presumably, the “blessed in Heaven” that vjtorley refers to had/have limited earthly power and secondary causality.
Your question would change significantly, keiths, if you actually believed in the God you are asking vjtorley to measure. Wouldn’t it?
VJ:(2) although God might have made all human beings impeccable from the get-go, He was certainly under no obligation to do so;
Many believe that humans were impeccable until God choose to test their obedience.
Putting it another way, if I had been made perfect from the start, then I would not have been “me,” but someone else, as the conditions defining my identity would have been different;
I,for one, would be glad to step aside to allow humanity to live as perfect beings.
VJ:God cannot be held responsible to an individual X for an evil that God could have prevented only by preventing the existence of X.
So God allows evil else we would not exist,what about all those who would exist in a world without evil? Why doesn’t their existence matter as much as ours ?
Gregory:That’s kind of like asking “So, how Calvinist are you?!” isn’t it? Presumably, the “blessed in Heaven” that vjtorley refers to had/have limited earthly power and secondary causality.
Could you clarify that?
OK. I’m sure everyone will behave impeccably in your absence. Zachriel made a good point which I hope everyone can take on board.
@ Dr. Torley
Hi Vincent. Pleased you could stop by again.
“Could you clarify that?”
No. Do a little exploring yourself.
Still, having the ability to create an existence (heaven) which lacks suffering and which is presumably interesting enough to keep one occupied for eternity, calls into question the need to create suffering.
The implication is that life is in some way superior to heavenly existence.
The interesting question is not whether I would think about this differently as a believer; it is that as a former believer I came to see this as a story made up by people to control and manipulate other people.
It’s certainly a better inference than the ID inference. We can watch in real time people inventing new religions. Several have come on the market in my lifetime.
So unlike ID, we can say something about the attributes of religion inventors, their capabilities, their motives, their means.
Vincent Torley at uncommondescent.com commented:
I wonder whether the fact that this annual slaughter occurs negates the existence of a just God or would you argue that bottlenose dolphins aren’t sentient and can be brutally slaughtered with impunity?
Gregory,
No. It was my willingness to ask difficult questions that led me to abandon theism, not the reverse.
I think that was just a great joke, Gregory.
Yeah, Alan. There’s a lot of ultimately empty ‘jokes’ out there coming from atheists. Spaghetti anyone?
Alan Fox,
Hi Alan,
I quite agree that bottlenose dolphins are sentient, and I think they may well possess a sense of self, albeit rudimentary. However, I don’t think animal suffering negates the existence of a just God. For at least the past 500 years, Christians have speculated about the possibility of a hereafter for animals.
I’d like to say more, but I’m very busy right now.
Welcome to TSZ, Dr Torley! I was just about to respond to your some of your questions, and have them all ready in my copy buffer!
So let me start with those:
Yes, essentially, although the configuration and energy of that “stuff” is also part of what I mean by “material”. This may be an obvious point but I’d like to get it out of the way! A snowflake is made of the same “stuff” as a raindrop – indeed it may turn into one – but that does not mean that a snowflake has the same properties as a rain-drop. So how the “stuff” is configured, is part of what a material entity is.
Yes, I think that an entity capable of intelligence and volition must have some non-zero quantity of mass-energy.
Yes, I think so, but not necessarily within “our” universe – I certainly don’t rule out other universes, or parts of this one that are beyond our observation.
Yes.
Yes. A great many nested parts.
Behaving in ways that can be predicted by laws we are able to discern. If that’s what you mean by “Nature”, yes.
Not sure what you mean by “invariant”. I certainly think that the regularities that enable us to predict the world can be described mathematically, even if that math includes stochastic terms!
I think I have probably made my definition of “matter” clear enough. I’m not sure I have one exactly formulated, but you seem to have covered most of the bases. I include, as I said, configuration and energy in my definition, and these are extremely important. The same amount of matter (as in mass) in a different configuration and/or energy state would be a different “thing” in my view, even though both “reduced” to the same “matter”.
As for why an intelligent being has to be a material entity, configured in a particular way, with particular energetic properties: well, I think that intelligence and volition in terrestrial animals, particularly large animals including us, is a capability that derives from the our material configurations as biological organisms with brains. In an earlier post of yours, in response to one of mine, I think you essentially agreed that “philosophical zombies” – in the sense of a physically identical being to, say, me, but without consciousness, is incoherent (forgive me if I misunderstood you). But that is certainly my position – that our capacity to think, intend, feel, perceive, act, love – are a direct consequence of our material configuration, and that a materially identical entity would necessarily have those capacities too. Conversely, I see no reason to think that an entity without that material configuration (or something comparable) could have those capabilities.
Now to your two questions above:
More or less as you’ve extracted from me with the questions I have now addressed – mass, configured over space (and time, incidentally) with energetic properties.
I don’t think quite that. What I actually said was:
New emphasis added.
To put it less flippantly, what I meant was that even if some incontrovertible evidence for an intentional intelligent designer of life, including human life (and I certainly don’t rule it out a priori) was to be produced (and I don’t find the ID arguments I’ve encountered so far persuasive), I don’t think that leads necessarily to the conclusion that that designer had human welfare as a high priority.
I think one could just as easily, on that evidence (i.e. that “an intentional intelligent designer” unspecified must have been involved) come to very different conclusions as to that designer’s intentions. And I find it completely circular when people argue that what is Good must be what God Degrees is Good, and therefore God must be Good.
I do, in fact, believe in something, for want of a better word, I call “Good”. But I don’t think it made the universe, and I don’t see any reason to think that what is Good, has anything to do with why we exist. I do think that, given that we exist, and seem capable of what I call “Good” that it’s what we should do, and to some extent I admire and “worship” that ideal.
I just don’t see any logical relationship between what is Good and how we came to be here.
Although I do think that our capacity for Good evolved, and is a result of our nature as social species.
Dr Torley’s questions part II:
OK. You have specified that I’ve created a “glitch free” system that results in life, and I’m going to assume that the system works more or less as we think that evolution does, plus some unspecified non-miraculous OoL process. Now, it is my view that many possible starting configurations of such a universe are possible, and some will result in life like us, and some will not. So I interpret your question as: if I am a Benevolent, do I, as a (presumably omniscient) designer, do I set in motion one of my blueprints that gives rise to:
(a) sentient beings capable of feeling pain, but with no self-awareness whatsoever;
(b) sentient beings with some rudimentary self-awareness;
(c) sapient beings capable of reasoning and language, as well as a rich sense of self-awareness?
And my answer is: probably all of the above, because I’d really like to see (c) emerge, and I think that (a) and (b) are the necessary evolutionary precursors. And the reason I want (as a benevolent designer) to see (c) emerge, is because I’m lonely, and I’d really like someone to talk to 🙂 And to appreciate my beautiful world.
As I once wrote here.
No 🙂
n/a
tbh, it’s why I think that ID, apart from being bad science (and I do think it is bad science) is also bad theology. I think “theistic evolution” makes much more sense theologically, and solves the theodicy problem very neatly. Suffering because a necessary part of existing, because a sentient intelligent loving being that is cannot suffer makes no coherent sense in a natural world. I certainly don’t think evolution rules out theism, as I think I made clear.
My reasons for rejecting the possibility of immaterial intelligent creator mind are not because I think that such a mind could not have been benevolent, but because I think it isn’t possible.
But I do think Goodness is.
First, your personal comments regarding petrushka violate the site rules.
Second, before having a “serious, mature, wise discussion” about the Abrahamic religions, it seems not unreasonable to ask for some objective, empirical evidence that the deity they worship actually exists. Without that, there is no reason to take those beliefs seriously. Age confers no more credibility than does popularity.
Pastafarianism is hardly empty. It’s a parody that satirizes creationism (including the intelligent design variant), quite penetratingly, in my opinion.
I note in passing that there is exactly as much evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as for the Christian god.