Evolutionary Suffering: New Responses to this Atheistic Atom Bomb

Summary

In this video, the speaker explores the compatibility of evolution with theism, particularly addressing the challenge of evolutionary evil. The script argues that despite evolutionary suffering, theism remains epistemically favorable, proposing that evolutionary processes can be seen as part of a greater divine plan. The four elements of Darwinian evil (deep evolutionary time, plurality of worlds, anti-cosmic micro-monsters, and evil inscribed) are examined and countered from a theological perspective. The speaker introduces a Trope theory model of God, asserting that suffering can be justified if it serves a greater good, ultimately protecting theism from disconfirmation by evolutionary evil.

Takeaways

• 😀 The script defends the compatibility of evolution with theism, arguing that teleology is embedded in evolutionary processes.
• 😀 Evolutionary suffering, or 'evolutionary evil', is seen as a challenge to theism, but the script argues that it doesn't necessarily disprove God's existence.
• 😀 The Darwinian World consists of four main components: deep evolutionary time, a plurality of worlds, anti-cosmic microorganisms, and evils inscribed in evolutionary processes.
• 😀 Deep evolutionary time refers to the long history of species evolving and suffering, highlighting the brutal nature of the evolutionary process.
• 😀 The plurality of worlds refers to the rise and fall of different species, emphasizing randomness and chance, especially after mass extinctions.
• 😀 Anti-cosmic microorganisms highlight the discovery of harmful and seemingly purposeless microscopic creatures, which some argue conflict with theism.
• 😀 'Evils inscribed' refers to the brutal and inefficient processes of evolution, which may seem incompatible with the idea of a loving Creator.
• 😀 Theism traditionally holds that God is caring and partial towards the well-being of sentient creatures, making the intensity of evolutionary suffering seem problematic.
• 😀 The script proposes that theism can accommodate evolutionary suffering if it allows for the eventual defeat and compensation of suffering in the afterlife.
• 😀 The author challenges the 'moral condition of necessity' often used by naturalists, proposing instead the 'moral condition of defeat', where God allows suffering only if it can ultimately be overcome.
• 😀 Trope Theory is introduced as a way to understand God’s nature. According to this theory, God is numerically identical to His powers and characteristics, allowing for a more flexible understanding of how suffering can be part of a larger divine plan.
• 😀 The script argues that the existence of God can be logically consistent with the reality of evolutionary suffering if the suffering is seen as defeasible and ultimately compensated.

Q & A

What is the main argument in the video regarding the compatibility of evolution with theism?

The main argument is that evolution, particularly its teleological aspects, is epistemically compatible with theism. The speaker suggests that evolution's processes and mechanisms do not contradict the existence of a rational, caring, and orderly divine creator, as theism posits that reality is rational and favors order over chaos.

What is the concept of 'evolutionary evil' and how does it challenge theism?

Evolutionary evil refers to the natural evils observed in the evolutionary process, such as intense suffering, mass extinctions, and the existence of harmful microorganisms. These are seen as problematic for theism because they challenge the idea that a benevolent and loving God would allow such suffering, especially in an ordered, purposeful universe.

What are the four components that make up 'Darwinian World' as outlined by John R. Schneider?

The four components of Darwinian World are: 1) Deep evolutionary time, referring to the long history of pre-human life on Earth; 2) Plurality of worlds, referring to the variety of species and extinct worlds in evolutionary history; 3) Anti-cosmic microorganisms, referring to harmful microbes that seem purposeless; and 4) Evils inscribed, which refers to the brutal and inefficient processes of natural selection.

How does the argument from evolutionary evil claim to disconfirm theism?

The argument claims that the profusion of evolutionary suffering is incompatible with theism because a benevolent God should not allow such unnecessary and intense suffering. The argument posits that naturalism, which views the world as indifferent to suffering, is more plausible than theism in light of this suffering.

What is the role of 'shared axiology' in the debate between theism and naturalism concerning evolutionary evil?

Shared axiology refers to the common moral values or principles that both the naturalist and the theist would need to agree upon to argue effectively. The speaker argues that for the argument from evolutionary evil to be persuasive, both sides must agree on what constitutes unjustifiable suffering, but the theist is not bound to the same moral assumptions as the naturalist.

What is the 'condition of defeat' and how does it relate to justifiable evil?

The condition of defeat suggests that God is justified in permitting evil if it can ultimately be overcome or defeated. This condition challenges the naturalist assumption that suffering is unjustifiable unless it is necessary, arguing that suffering could be permissible if it leads to some greater good or eventual defeat of the evil.

How does the naturalist’s assumption of minimizing evil differ from the theist’s perspective?

The naturalist assumes that minimizing suffering is intrinsically valuable and that a benevolent God should prioritize this. In contrast, the theist may argue that God is not solely motivated by minimizing suffering but may allow it for larger, metanormative reasons, such as the eventual defeat of evil or the realization of a greater good.

What is the 'Trope theory' of God, and how does it contribute to the theist’s response to evolutionary evil?

Trope theory posits that God is an instantiation of abstract, self-exemplifying qualities or powers, rather than possessing traditional properties. According to this view, God’s nature is numerically identical to omnipotence, goodness, and other qualities. This theory supports the idea that God, as an omnipotent and good being, will necessarily bring about the best actions, which may include allowing certain evils for a greater good, thus mitigating the force of the argument from evolutionary evil.

How does the concept of 'aspect theory' contribute to the theistic defense against evolutionary evil?

Aspect theory, as applied by the speaker, suggests that God can have multiple self-differing qualities (aspects) within the same nature, such as being omnipotent and good simultaneously. This idea supports the view that God can allow suffering if it is part of a greater plan, such as the eventual defeat of evil, without contradicting his nature as a good and omnipotent being.

Why does the speaker argue that the argument from evolutionary evil cannot decisively disconfirm theism?

The speaker argues that the argument from evolutionary evil cannot disconfirm theism because the theist can explain suffering in terms of a broader, divine plan that includes the ultimate defeat of evil. Moreover, because the afterlife and eschatological compensation are core elements of theism, any suffering observed in this life may be part of a larger narrative that is ultimately justifiable, rendering the argument from evolutionary evil epistemically inconclusive.