Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.
….
I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious.Albert Einstein
If one accepts the hypothesis of intelligent design, one might reasonably conclude there are malicious intelligent designs.
Darwin was conflicted on this issue. He seemed sympathetic to ID on the cosmological scale but definitely not on the biological scale. The letter I quote from is here:
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-3154
He expresses some sympathy for cosmological scale ID
One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed
Charles Darwin
[What a juicy quote — hehe]
From the perspective of the cosmos, Darwin felt there was some sense of intelligent design. We might call it cosmological scale ID. On the other hand he rejected ID for the small scale in biology.
yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this. For, I am not prepared to admit that God designed the feathers in the tail of the rock-pigeon to vary in a highly peculiar manner in order that man might select such variations & make a Fan-tail; & if this be not admitted (I know it would be admitted by many persons), then I cannot see design in the variations of structure in animals in a state of nature,—those variations which were useful to the animal being preserved & those useless or injurious being destroyed.
Darwin states what many people feel:
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.
Charles Darwin
Darwin was referring to cruel scenes like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziUdOdHKpk8
Was that cruelty by intelligent design? If one accepts ID in biology, I think the answer must be “YES”. However, Darwin finds the idea of malicious design hard to reconcile with an intelligent creator.
This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one;
Charles Darwin
But why? There is no requirement that intelligent actions need be benevolent. Darwin took great pleasure in killing birds. Does Darwin’s cruelty against birds count as evidence against Darwin being an intelligent entity? Of course not.
Some of the parasites in nature seem awfully ingenious in their cruelty. So in addition to the examples Darwin himself mentioned, I found these:
Dermatobia Hominis – The Human Botfly
These buggers favor large mammals – including humans. A female botfly plants its eggs in a mosquito, which then bite and transport the eggs into a larger mammal. The larvae hatch from the eggs and then burrow out from under the mammal’s skin. They then fall to the ground, where they finish their pupa stage.
Cordyceps – The Zombie Fungus
This fungus comprises about 400 different species. It finds its way into insects and proceeds to slowly consume the insects’ brains. Once the brains are consumed, the fungus grows out of the insects’ heads to shower its spores down to the forest floor. Cordyceps often makes its victims climb high up in a tree or on a plant so the spores will have a better spread when they fall.
Dracunculiasis – Guinea Worm Disease
This parasite finds its way into humans and other mammals by swallowed water fleas. In a human stomach, the guinea worm larva tucks into a fleshy cavity and grows…and grows…and grows. Sometimes they reach 2-3 feet long. To get out, the worm creates a blister and burning sensation to entice a host to submerge the blister in water. If the host does so, the worm pokes its head out and squirts out a milky liquid, which carries thousands of larvae, into the water.
Nematomorpha – Horsehair Worm
Thankfully, this is another parasite that doesn’t bother humans, only insects. These parasites start off as larvae in water and get eaten by insects like grasshoppers. The worms then grow and mature. When a worm wants out of a host, it hijacks the host’s brain to make it commit suicide by plunging itself into water. The worm then exits.….
Ampulex Compressa – The Emerald Jewel WaspYou might feel bad for cockroaches after this one. The female wasp uses a stinger to first paralyze a cockroach’s body, then its brain. Her venom specifically targets and neutralizes the flight-or-fight response. Next, she leads the roach back to her burrow and lays her eggs. She then leaves, but first seals the burrow by placing pebbles at the entrance. The larvae hatch and eventually feed off the lobotomized roach.
Here is one for the advocates of Bio-Semiosis. This parasite sends false “Caterpillar” signals to birds to help the parasite breed:
Leucochloridium Paradoxum – Green-Banded Broodsac
These tiny worms wait around in fecal matter. Along comes a snail that unknowingly eats up the worm when it feeds off the excrement. Once in a snail, the worm actually reshapes the snail’s eyestalks to resemble big, juicy caterpillars. The worm controls the snail’s brain and forces it to expose itself. Along comes a bird or other critter that likes to eat caterpillars. Inside larger animals, the worm can now mature and lay more eggs.
Did the Designer create microbial parasites too? The Bubonic Plague, Malaria, Antrhax, AIDS , pandemic Influenza?
A TV show of relevance regarding both microbial and other parasites:
http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/monsters-inside-me/
On some level, one might desperately want to believe the world of biology is NOT intelligently designed, because if there intelligent design in biology, it is hard to run away from the inference that the source of the design is an intelligence willing to inflict malice.
The Bible refers to Satan as “the god of this world” suggesting the world is locally under the operative control of a Satanic intelligence because of God’s wrath. Whether one believes in such things or not, a Satanic intelligence operating on this world does seem a descriptive metaphor for the world of biology as Darwin himself observed:
What a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel work of nature!
Charles Darwin
Not really as the bad can be easily explained by random mutations in a once good design.
I can’t stand the “why didn’t God make the world only good” arguments. It is a philosophically immature question.
How hard would someone work in a world that was only good? How creative would one be in a world that is only good? Can one even imagine in their brain a world of only good and no bad. I say no. Because then what would be better than good? Nothing? So every sensation, every event would have the exact same level of goodness, the exact same sensation? Why would you prefer any state to another, if they were all only good? Why do anything?
Its a child’s argument.
Your god is weak.
So, not planning on going to heaven then?
OMagain,
Maybe God’s plan is for people to create in this world, and they have different objectives in another world. Who knows.
You still haven’t answered the plan of what people would do in a world that was only good. Why would they ever move?
One answer (not mine) is that ‘good’ is whatever God says it is. Aaaaand … it’s back to morality!
Flagella, by the way. They help some pretty crappy organisms get around.
Allan Miller,
Right, so you need bad to have good now don’t you Allan?
Speaking of philosophically immature…why would a “god” care about creativity or or hard work of any finite being in a material world? Why would a “god” care about anything done in a material world if it doesn’t care about evil vs good conditions?
Maybe because they enjoy eating and having sex.
If my aunt had bollocks, she’d be my uncle.
Robin,
In everything in the world was only good, there would be no reason to eat and have sex, now would there?
phoodoo,
I don’t think you ‘need’ bad, but it’s frequently the case that a concept exists because it has an antithesis.
I really don’t know to what extent bad has to occur to keep us java-ed up. I’m not sure distateful parasites do the job.
phoodoo,
It’s all a question of degree …
OMagain,
If there was only good and no bad in the world, you aunt wouldn’t care if she had bollocks, now would she? She wouldn’t care about anything, because why bother thinking, what is the downside?
Your god is weak. So there are only two possible alternative worlds your god can think of? An opiate stupor or red in tooth and claw with eye eating worms?
You say “good” and imply “evil”. Yet I don’t think eye-worms are evil. So removing them does not only leave a world we would call “good”. It just means kids don’t have to go blind. They can still be “evil” all they like, they’ll just be able to see while doing it.
I tell you what. Assuming we are still here I vote for the world we’ll have in 500 years time. If we’ve solved all our current problems that can be solved, thus leaving only the “good” then we’ll see if people are still “moving about” in a world that was only good.
I think the real problem many theists have is a limited imagination.
On what basis are you stating that? I can think of one great reason to continue eating and having sex – they’re enjoyable! What other reason to do anything would one need in any world, let alone a world of only good things?
Your premise though does raise a question in my mind – how can there “good” without activity? In other words, as far as I can imagine, in a world of only good, people would all continue to do many if not most of things we do today. They just wouldn’t be able to do anything bad. But I can’t imagine why simply recognizing that the world has only good things in it would stop anyone from wanting to experience enjoyment. Further, I can’t imagine anything would be “good” if no one was enjoying anything. So to my mind, everyone would have a much better incentive than they do now to go forth and do things…all sorts of things in fact! They’d all be good! Woohoo!
Does Bad have a role in Heaven?
Allan Miller,
So what do you call something that is worse than good, if its all about degrees? How many degrees are there?
I believe you haven’t considered this.
Name 10 bad things.
No, rather it goes right at the heart of the claim that there’s an omnibenevolent and omnipotent god out there having created the world. The world doesn’t look like there is.
For example, at some point in human history, a child was raped. Presumably an omnipotent and omniscient god could have intervened and prevented that child-rape. A world like ours, but with one less child-rape, is a better world than ours. Which means that, if god made this world specifically, god deliberately chose to produce a world that isn’t the best one possible.
If I was god, I would have prevented that child-rape. Which means, if child-rape is objectively morally wrong, that I’m objectively morally superior to god.
If child-rape is objectively morally wrong, and if objective moral oughts exist, then if you have the knowledge and power to do so, you are morally obliged to prevent child-rape. But the child-rape went un-prevented by god.
This implies one or several of the following options:
1. That god is not omnibenevolent.
2. God did not know about that child-rape, and isn’t, then, omniscient.
3. That god could not prevent that child-rape, and isn’t, then, omnipotent.
4. There is no god.
Allan Miller,
Perhaps that is why we have a world first, so we can create in the world are in now. Who knows. But again, what would anyone do in a world with only good. There is really only one answer, nothing. Because there would be no reason to do anything.
Rumraket,
You are asking for a world where nothing bad can happen to children. In that world, why would a child need to eat? Why would a child need to move? Answer me that?
OMagain,
Or…you could try to have a point?
So you don’t dispute that
A) you made a claim (as quoted above)
B) I asked you what the support was for that claim
C) You told me to go read the Koran.
OK, just so we’re clear and all agree. I think I’ve made the point I was trying to make. Even if it’s not clear to you.
Name 10 bad things.
No, I’m not asking for a perfect world. I don’t believe a perfect world is possible. At least not a perfect physical world, with stars, planets, galaxies and cells made of atoms. But clearly and demonstrably, a BETTER world than ours is possible. An example of a better one would be one like ours but with one less child-rape.
Why would a child need to eat? It wouldn’t if it wasn’t made of cells and was subject to the laws of thermodynamics.
I’ve been told there’s an immaterial soul that lives on after the physical body dies. I presume the immaterial soul doesn’t need to cover physical distances and consume physical nutrients to sustain it’s physical body.
Am I wrong?
OMagain,
Tell me why anyone would do anything in a world that was only good?
Tell me 10 things that, if included in what would be removed, would ruin our ability to “move around”.
Rumraket,
So you want a world where children don’t eat or breathe or have to move right? And they don’t die right?
Maybe you already have the world with one less child rape in it right now,right? But then you want two more less? And no stubbed toes right? And no hunger right? And no reason to do anything right?
What happens in a world that has no bad? How much less bad do we need for you to declare its the world you want?
OMagain,
I don’t understand what the hell you are trying to say. What would anyone need to do in a world with no bad? Simple question Omagain.
Why do you get to have your questions answered but answer nobody elses?
OMagain,
Get used to your own medicine. You spend half your life here telling people what homework assignments you are giving them.
I’m trying to help you understand what I’m trying to say. I’m doing that by asking you a question. I’ll then make a further comment once/if you answer. Doing this will help you understand my point, as I’ll be able to use your 10 items in my answer. Assuming that is the things you name are in the scope of things I think you’ll say. But we’ll see how it goes.
Your turn.
OMagain,
I don’t need you to answer Omagain. I have already shown the reason why the premise of a world with no bad is not feasible if people are to achieve things.
Look, you said you had evidence that predictions of evolution were being disconfirmed. I just wanted to see what those were. But apparently that’s too simple for you.
I don’t really understand what you mean by “no bad”. Can you give some examples? Perhaps we’re thinking of entirely different things.
In a world with no child rape or hunger, people would still get up and go to work.
Do you have any other “bad” things you think are required to keep us on our toes or is that it?
Thank you for your comment.
The situation is, at some level neither of the options provides much solace, probably no option ever will.
I’ve obviously opted for option #1, a God who is often quite malicious and wrathful toward humanity.
Although I’m unaware of child rape in my family, I had one family member who was a social worker who was brutally raped and murdered. Like probably everyone, I’ve seen family members suffer and pass away.
There aren’t many options where we can look at reality and be completely satisfied with the way it plays out. Maybe that’s why fiction and happy endings are so compelling and engaging. Science and math for me also occasionally provides amusement. I suppose I loved attacking casinos with my math skills since it helped drown out some sorrows.
PS
My aunt who was killed was commemorated by the Governor of Wisconsin. She was a devout Catholic. This was a news article about her. Her murder case was cold for 13 years before it was solved in 2003:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.true-crime/fH0bKZPzzho
I don’t see why any child (or any living thing for that matter) would stop breathing. How is breathing bad?
Ditto for eating. There’s a possibility that kids would eat only candy, but so what? There’d be no consequences for doing so, so ehh…it’s all good (heh! I kill myself sometimes!)
As for dying, no problemo. If someone wanted to, he or she would just commit suicide. And it would be good. Maybe even fun? Who knows since we don’t have that right now. So again…where’s the issue exactly?
You haven’t made the case that no one would do anything Phoodoo. And I’ve demonstrated precisely why people would continue to do things (for fun) in a world of only good. So your argument doesn’t work. Got something else?
No bad at all. Anything else either makes the premise of omnigods evil or that there are no omnigods at all.
No you haven’t. You’ve merely made an assertion that no one would do anything; you’ve yet to support that assertion however.
Why do you think this is what I want? I already told you I don’t believe a perfect physical world is possible.
No. I’m aware of cases of child-rape that, without which, the world would have been better and which, if I had known about them before they happened, I would have been morally obliged to prevent.
So no, we are not in a world with one less child-rape.
Yes, of course. I unashamedly admit, I would if I could, prevent all child-rapes.
Stubbed toes can stay.
Well it makes sense that you should get hungry if you don’t eat. But if you can feed someone without effort, know of their suffering yet let them die of hunger, you aren’t morally good.
People are happy?
We can start by having god prevent all child-rapes henceforth. Tomorrow, all child-rapes go to a frequency of 0 and never happen again. By the end of next year, when this is reflected and widely reported on in worldwide statistics and news media, I will become a believer in and intensely worship god and spread the good news of his deeds and message.
Robin,
Cuz you say so? That isn’t an argument
stcordova,
I don’t often agree with you, but I have to respect the honesty of actually embracing the problem of evil. I can’t say as I’ve seen a theist do that before.
I agree, that takes some courage.
No, because “omnibenevolent” cannot allow evil, by definition. This is even more problematic when coupled with “omniscient” and “omnipotent”. Any entity that has the knowledge AND the power to do anything at no cost, but allows evil, is…by definition…evil.
Rumraket,
Is there hunger in your world?
People get hungry when they don’t eat, yeah.
Have a nice eternity in heaven.
“Welcome to your future in robotics”
Question for theists. (I could be wrong, but I assume you all believe in an afterlife, an existence in which your consciousness continues in some form or another.)
Does the afterlife have disease, poverty, crime, sex, hunger, passion, and so forth?
Two parts to the question: what do you know, and what do you not know, but expect?