Towards a Refuttal of Stephen Law's "Evil God" Challenge

Below is a e-mail sent to London, to Justin Brierley, host of the Primier Radio's "Unbelievable," a show that brings together two opposing opinions and seeks friendly exchange.  A recent guest was Stephen Law, an atheist who had courageously debated William Lane Craig in this November's "Reasonable Faith" Tour of the United Kingdom. In a follow-up show that discussed Law's sole reliance on the Problem of Evil, he elaborated on what he called the "evil god challenge."  The problem of evil sees an inconsistency between God's mercy, God's power, and the presence of evil in the world.  Dismissing God's inability to control the flow of evil, Law assumed that such a God would be of necessity evil in nature.  If not so, no God would exist, at least not One worthy of worship.

 

Many others have responded mainly with the ontologically impossible state of God who is good being of any sense evil.  I see the matter as one of perception of what involves the evil action, if we could analyze any situation and totally label it evil, and do this in such a way that all factors would be weighed before such pronouncements.  Such analysis is impossible.  Perceived evil need not be actual evil.

 

Presented is the email for your examination.  Read and ponder.

Stephen Law's "Evil God Challenge"

TO: 1 More1 recipient

CC: recipientsYou More

BCC: recipientsYou

Hide Details

FROM:

• Doran Fischer

TO:

• unbelievable@premier.org.uk

Message flagged

Thursday, December 29, 2011 7:11 AM

Message body

Justin,

As always, a splendid series of interviews in the wake of the William Lane Craig debates. I admire your fairness to showcase both Craig and his chief debate opponent in the Reasonable Faith tour, Dr. Law.

As many of your listeners, I am not impressed with the Evil God Challenge of Dr. Law. I have agreed with many responses that questioned the proposition on ontological grounds, but, on first listen, I took the reasonings of the challenge to be much like the opinions we Americans had of the police in the 1960's and 70's. The references to those committed to "serve and protect" as the "fuzz" and "pigs" seemed to arise from the rebellious factions in those days, the unwashed hippy, the drug-induced youth, the drop-outs. Law's dismissal of God as evil seemed to follow these same lines, the segment of society that hinders you the most takes on some degree of demonization. However, this quick analogy does limp terribly, as you pointed out the relative strength of all analogies at the end of one of your shows. The police are corruptible, and possibilities of the forces of law enforcement to engage in criminal activity makes this quick assessment of Law's opinions rather weak.

Still, there may be something to this line of thought of declaring God as evil as an expression of perspective that doesn't allow for God being good, and His apparent evils as misunderstood by those who can't understand the ways of God in dealing with a sinful world. So, I'll attempt this second analogy, taking advantage of the fact that in viewing things historical, my American perspective should come at odds with your British understanding of events. To demonstrate that one's perspective in some issue could be lacking depth, let's examine one event in the American Revolution, the Boston Massacre of 1770. Tragic as this event was, we may consider the issues such as the specific number of loss of life constituting a "massacre." The fact that five people died may be an outrage to me, while you Justin may take issue that a "massacre" could be more the matter of burning, looting, and strewing carnage over five city blocks. We may take issue with the matter of provocation, the ill-temper of rock and snowball throwing colonials over against the muskets of the redcoat. We may argue over the acts of quartering troops at public expense, the colonial distaste at personal cost over against the British feeling of respect for those who had been stationed to protect the interests of the crown. But the view of the "evil redcoat" whose actions of firing on a crowd that they deemed correctly or incorrectly as dangerously aggressive will be seen from two different perspectives. In their trial, the soldiery was acquitted thanks to the shrewdness of one lawyer named John Adams, whose efforts ran against the prompting of his own brother Sam Adams who used the event as propaganda to inflame further revolution though more of the thirteen colonies. In the end, you Justin may defend the actions of the soldiers, declaring them not "evil oppressors," but really unfortunate men who were placed in difficult times to do their duties among an unappreciative people.

This is my assessment of Law's Evil God Challenge, engaging in a true understanding of God's activities in difficult times done in the perspective of an unappreciative heart and mind. If he envisions an evil god, could he do equal time on the premise of a possibly good god whose goodness we couldn't begin to fathom? Or could all this be such as Jesus complains of in His parable of The Great Banquet, "But they all with one accord began to make excuses ..." (Luke 14: 18a).

As always, a refreshing exchange of ideas, and I'm looking forward to continued pleasantries of opinion in your remarkable forum. Keep up this wonderful work in the new year.

Doran Fischer

Ixonia, Wisconsin (USA)

Legacy of the Strawman: The "Pedestaled" Argument

The view that most arguments can be easily refuted if presented in an inaccurate form and crushed has led to a new vista:  arguments and positions that merit shoddy treatment.  This tweak on the politically incorrect position conceives then of arguments and positions that must be per faciem allowable, to be orthodox in all social structures.  Such as these need not be under review, unless the trends sweep away to further ideologies that become the pampered pets of social dreamers.

This variation of the argumentum ad auctoritatem focuses its placement not on logical grounds, but rather that a figure possessing ability of discernment in some viable field that grants him/her a deciding opinion on some matter of concern.  In its worse manifestations, it gravitates toward the views of the elite, or notions of a celebrity.  In the market of ideas, a form of status is assumed where the views of Class A supersedes the notions of a predetermined inferior Class B.

I have sensed that we are fast moving away from the concept of an arena of ideas, where all submissions are given fair movement to be recognized as valid, workable, flawed, or commendable.  We are soon lapsing into a society of only a few capable minds worthy of submitting plans and concepts.  Is a conservative opinion to be rejected due to its conservatism, or can it attain the flow of thoughts that contribute to the workings of a fair, equitable society?

One more video presentation on the strawman fallacy

In searching for realistic explanations for the fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi, I discovered this somewhat equal treatment of the issue without perceived biases toward any position.

Watch and ponder.

Towards a Refutation of New Atheist Rhetoric: The Uncle Joe Analogy

The amount of misinformation that is ushered in a single missive of the pillars of New Atheism is staggering.  The seminal work of Dawkins' The God Delusion is centered on creation of a figure of God as misanthropic, self-possessed, egocentric, intolerant.  This is the strategies of Hitchens in god is not Good.  Most approaches to New Atheist argument is the classic creation of strawman.  It is based on the simple premise that such a personal God as conceived and created by the minds of the pundit of New Atheism is totally unworthy of worship and praise.  I would agree, to the extent that such depictions would be accurate, and if they are not, the whole of these arguments are worthless.  The God of The God Delusion is nothing but a poor caricature.

This is the point of the age of misinformation that is soon to be the New Atheism.  This is the core concept of the following analogy.  If the New Atheist cannot substantiate their depiction of the Godhead, crass and biased as it is, we must only surmise why such depictions are the stock and trade of this movement.

Read and ponder.

*************************

THE UNCLE JOE ANALOGY

You are the member of a wonderful family, filled with many noteworthy members of kindness and charity.  As you contemplate the rationale of the generosity of this clan, you come to realize that the foundation of this virtue is that of the family patriarch, Uncle Joe.  In all your dealings within the family, all the uncles, aunts, cousins, parents (grand and great-grands, as well as the mothers and fathers) have nothing but praise for this relative.  You are acquainted with this wonderful man from childhood visits.  Members of the community gush with appreciation for the gentle deeds of Uncle Joe.  For many years for have encountered nothing but commendations for Uncle Joe.  In the long and short of this matter, Uncle Joe is a paragon of all that is good, as acknowledged by the vast number of the general populace.

Then you meet with a viewpoint of those who have been critical of Uncle Joe.  In fact, more so than critical, it is vindictive.  You have heard reports of these men from others, and you have had the opportunity to listen in on their conversations.  You know the events of experiences you have had with Uncle Joe, and it seems unreasonable to make such ill-reports about the valued uncle.  As you hear these messages, you try to understand the reasons for such malicious words:

1.  Uncle Joe, for all his merits, has made enemies.

2. Uncle Joe, for all his merits, has caused people to envy him.

3.  Uncle Joe, for all his merits, had done things to offend others.

4.  Uncle Joe has no merits.  It is all sham.  These individuals who despise him are correct.

Of these initial options, the fourth one has clear deficits.  You could make a list of such merits.  You can clearly witness the times Uncle Joe had performed with honor.  The other three have one common theme, a negative reaction to the meritoriousness of Uncle Joe.  The first variation has Uncle Joe perform actions that has disenfranchised others, in spite of the virtuousness of the acts.  The second variation has others in competition with Uncle Joe's merits; the only matter here is that Uncle Joe has out-performed these others, who resent him for this.  The third variation has Uncle Joe in dutiful performance of his meritoriousness, but somehow that this has possibly harmed or insulted individuals.

As you try to contemplate other reasons, you cannot derive another reason.  You are convinced of Uncle Joe's kindness and humane relations with others.  If others despise Uncle Joe, it is for a lack of understanding Uncle Joe's true nature.  It results in an attempt to poison minds and upset people in questioning the gentility of the patriarch.

The weakness of this analogy is finding a fifth (or more) reason(s) beyond those expressed in this post.  But this reason must begin with the true nature of Uncle Joe; anything more than this is unsubstantiated rumor-mongering.  Uncle Joe is good, undeniably so.  This has been recognized for ages.  To refuse this opening foundation reduces all vitriol against Uncle Joe as baseless.

**************

If there is a sound base to the conceptualization of God by New Atheists, they have not discovered it.  For them to argue against God, they must envision Him as malevolent.  But this is rudimentary strawman argument.  But it defeats the purpose, as it posits the idea of an ability to envision Him.  It may well be that they have not done so properly.

The Strawman Argument: The Liberal Arsenal?

I found this You Tube offering in my frequent searches for ideas in exploring the strawman argument.  I found that the conservative is as apt to use the fallacy.  One logic fallacy site noted the work of Dr. James Dobson and his tendency to misunderstand the opposing side.  So, I'm not too biased in presenting this whimsical clip of the strawman used by the President.

View and ponder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4Im5zHGLZx0

If there are equally attrocious conservative strawman fallacies, it would be would noting them, then search for the common understanding of the issues, rather than raise the demons of those called the opposition.

Towards a Refutation of Scientism: Analogy of the Vanishing Phenomenon

Of all the various strawmen arguments that I have experienced in a variety of postings is the odd notion that Christians are anti-science.  This accusation is at face value ridiculous.  It is built on a notion that if in effect the Christian is critical of any aspects of the theory of evolution, they have rejected the whole of the fields of science.  Careful examination of the issue demonstrates this farcical argument to be an inept evasion of the central issue of the nature of science, whether the sciences must by default accept a philosophical foundation of closed materialistic systems.

A Christian is hardly anti-science.  This area of study is a part of all curricula in the Lutheran school systems I have come across.  The branches of scientific research in the areas of earth, life, physical, and health science is grounded in our concepts of Christian education.  We question important aspects of evolutionary science only on the theory's inability to explain a system of creation of life, a questioned ability to develop adequate forms of complicated life, the origins of sexuality, and concepts of explanation of mind and consciousness.  We acclaim the earliest pioneers in the modern scientific revolution to have Christian roots.  We. therefore, find it insulting to be labeled as ignorant or scientific endeavor or procedures.

We take greatest offense at the sweeping claims of scientism to be sole arbiter of all truthful propositions, if for no other reason that religion and philosophy would make no such claims.  It is also a position that is indefensibile to a thoughtful individual who would take the moment to wonder at the ability of scientism to adequately prove its own truth claim.  I offer the following analogy to try to explain the difficulty of scientism to maintain itself, if other methods of inquiry can claim to support the search for truth.  This is done with full understanding of the advances due to scientific inquiry and am thankful for same.  But the basis philosophy of such a breed of science must be shown its short-comings.  It is in this spirit I offer this modern parable.

Read and ponder.

THE ANALOGY OF THE VANISHING PHENOMENA

You have come to this town for reasons of business.  Having registered at your hotel, you have spent a restful night and have wakened at 7:00 and taken it into your head to take a morning stroll through the mostly deserted downtown district in search of a restaurant to take in breakfast.  The blocks you pass through are for the most part pedestrian-less, and the first light of morning is well there.  You can see clearly enough, with only a few shadows, and that suddenly disappearing as you turn onto a well lit, sunny avenue, with good chances of dining establishments down the street.

It is here that you see about a block from you a walker heading in your direction.  Nothing noteworthy is made of this person, other than he appears to be or typical size and slenderness.  In your walk, you clearly view him a good minute.  As you near each other, with only ten yards separating, suddenly his form disappears.  Nothing.  You move to where he had been moving.  Again, no evidence of him actually having been there.  But you have seen him.  His disappearance is jarring, alarming, but you ponder the possibilities, coolly, calmly, reflecting all you've seen and noted.  You immediately offer yourself a line of possible explanations.

1) This has been somewhat of a mirage.
2) This has been some sort of hallucination.
3) This is some sort of prank, a projection or holographic image placed in your path by some ingenious member of MIT, Cal Poly, or some special effects group trying out some new technique.

Oh, and you can't help thinking, and quickly discounting:

4) This must have been a ghost.  Tee hee.  A silly thought.  Not worth any account.

As you find your breakfast spot, you think over the three "scientific" or "reasonable" explanations.  While all three of them have the advantage of natural explanation (and you are sure you could think of more on further reflection), you admit they have equal merit, and equal deficits.  You consider the morning's suns angles too high to acknowledge a chance of this phenomenon to be comparable to that of "witch water."  You had taken nothing that morning that would bring on any sensation closely resembling an hallucination.   You have great respect for the field of special effects technology, but the municipality you have visited doesn't have any demographics that would suggest that such a technologically trained individual would reside in the town.  Still, you are intriqued enough to ask the patrons and staff at the restaurant you've entered.  They know a large segment of people that live in and frequent the general area.  They know of many an intelligent individual that works in the offices of the area, but none are technically trained in the field that would have projected an apparent morning walker.

And that's when you stumble across the truth.

**************

ANSWER:  The phenomenon you've encountered was a ghost.

**************

And yes, you have a reason to complain at the definiteness of the answer.  It is the only non-scientific, non-natural explanation that had been offered.  But many of the patrons and restauranteers, on inquiring why you are asking about projections and holographs, learn of your encounter.  And they tell you the story of an unfortunate fellow whose death was a shock, yet many have too seen this individual, could tell you the background story, and beg that you take them seriously.

The issue of scientism is, of course, that you cannot take this explanation seriously.   More possible natural explanations could be raised, while objections can be made to the proposed supernatural explanation.  This is the nature of science in its raw philosophical base of materialistic naturalism.  Scientism has reduced at whole of what is factual and true within the confines of the scientific "box."  It acknowledges nothing beyond this box.

This leads to two weaknesses:  1) only one manifestation beyond the box needs be demonstrated to disallow the "box." And 2) science has no apparatus that could look beyond the confines to verify whether such be true/false.  It can only assume on metaphysical grounds the validity of its closed system box, but never capable of proving it.  It can only question, denounce, eliminate, discredit, any evidence of the "beyond."  This is the scientific foundation that scientism is locked into, a blind man's glance into the darkness.  I as scientist wish nothing to be there, but am incapable of the justifying glance.

The analogy, to be frank, is a quick telling of a story that offers a crude enigma, but I feel must be responded to.  I look forward to all thought that would clarify this issue.

Video: Strawman Fallacy

Below is as simple an explanation of the strawman fallacy as I could present.  While a deep philosophical issue and a fallacy officially declared Ignoratio Elenchi, you could not conceive of a better explanation of the pernicious nature of this line of non-argument.

View and ponder.

The Strawman Argument

In prior years, training in martial warfare included whacking away at a straw-fill opponent who took the parries of your swords and thrusts of your spear without counter-attack.  This was the safest approach to handling introduction to warfare at the basic level.  Attack what you can't fear reprisal and you shall live to fight another day.

But face the facts.  You weren't fighting.  You battered the defenseless ... err, make that offenseless foe that fell to your battering attacks without objection.

This is the scope of modern life, opinions that are aired without fears of opposition.  We have become manic at the very idea of having our views rejected that we insulate ourselves with colleagues who see things our way, and all else be relegated to the halls of infidelity.  Scoundrels, low-lifes, opportunists who prey upon the ...  Well, they're bad folk, without a doubt.

It is time for a breath of more serene air.  We believe what we believe, and know what we know.  But we also have ears.  Ears that can listen, using hearts that know our minds, yet ready to hear the hearts and minds of others.  We cannot divide into groups as Tea Party and Occupy, and spend time bantering about the foibles of the others.  One, it's argumentation at its worse, more of a milling about and gossiping.  Two, it makes me long for the days when Point-Counterpoint was a longed for feature in my week, when Fitzpatrick and von Hoffmann declared their positions, neither side attacking, but offering a moment to consider one, then two points to consider.  And finally, allow the decision to the listener, for he has given the consideration of listening, not reacting to political rabble-rousing.

I enjoy Saturday mornings by listening to a radio show in the UK called Unbelievable?  This is the show that gets believers and unbelievers to come together to talk about the convictions that drive each side, whatever the issue.  This ability to dialogue has been lost to the weak and cowardly attacking of the build-for-the-moment, destroy-to-feel-vindicated strawman.  It is time for the courage of convictions

Speak our minds.  But consider the feelings and convictions of our fellow man/woman whose only (non)crime is to be of an entirely different opinion.  Are we that brave?

Goals and Purposes of NMS

With this idea that one-sided argumentation against a perceived, often demonized opponent is the mainstay of modern popular thought, let's pursue a position of examining the issues that have been polarizing the nation and seek peaceable, rational dissertations with opportunities to gather about a commentary of ideas, counter-ideas, and proposals to the issues.  One viewpoint, whether it be political correctness (a regular consultant to the strawman argument) or symposiums of like-minded individuals weighing in on an issue, won't alleviate matters.  I believe in the idea of the "arena of ideas," where ideas meet to battle, demonstrating the soundness of an idea which shall live, or exposing the vacuousness of an opinion and allowing it to die and be done.

The first goal of this blog is pragmatic.  In instructing others to develop blog website, I should at least have the time to dabble in the craft.  Granted, this doesn't help solidify the rationale of No More Strawmen.  But I perceive the weblog as a sounding board, a forum of the many who are willing to share ideas and opinions, with the hopes of conviction of others.  Such should be the heritage of the world of the "cybernaut," those who frequents sites as this and offer thought to the matter under discussion.

I won't disillusion myself.  I cut my teeth in the articles and comments and blogs of the Christian Post.  Though my wishes were for irenic discussion, I often didn't find it.  Ad hominem arguments ranged from both sides of the issue.  As if we couldn't offer a give-and-take without fear of losing the point or finding our positions at a loss.  I never did, but felt the sting of those whose ideas could allow no  disagreement, as if lock-step was the dance of the poster.

My blog will attempt some level of dialog.  My future blogs will offer some insight on some political or theological (the latter my preference) matter.  The comment section that follows each blog is made for this style of dialog.  I only make two requests:
1) all responses, whether in support or in contradiction, should be offered as diplomatically as possible understanding that
2) I offer no definitive position, just a point to consider and  any offered insights are commentary to the issue.

It is to this end that true dialog, passionately given as dispassionately as possible, will be the hallmark of this blog, to all who find it, and all who care for understanding the view of the two, the opinions that run so contrary ... yet without vicious words, reprisals, and ill-feelings.