Andrew Ollerton's take on Suffering and Evil. Part I

In this two part article I will be looking at the response of Andrew Ollerton to Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch's loss of faith. Andrew Ollerton is the author of the Bible Society's successful Bible and Romans courses, courses we have run at our church. Andrew's response to Badenoch can be found on the Premier Christianity website here. Below I interleave some of Andrew's content with my own comments. 

***

Andrew: In a recent BBC interview, the leader of the Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch, revealed that her belief in God was destroyed when she put her ear to the monstrous crimes of Josef Fritzl. For Kemi Badenoch, the idea of a God who ignores the cries of victims like Elisabeth, while answering other relatively trivial prayers, is completely untenable.

My Comment: I'm not going to elaborate on the awful crimes of Josef Fritzl toward his daughter Elizabeth; that can be discovered on the internet. Suffice to say here that Kemi Badenoch was quoted as saying that when she heard about these crimes what faith she had was snuffed out like a candle flame. Kemi has my sympathies; so often the challenge of suffering overwhelms any attempt at theodicy. But at this juncture I'm reminded of this post where I considered  atheist PZ Myers' response to suffering and evil. Viz: 

PZ Myers: No one uses the problem of evil to disprove a god, but only the idea of a benevolent god, or more specifically, the perfectly good being most Christians promote. When I see it deployed in an argument, it’s usually to make the narrower point that I don’t believe in your god..........But OK, sure, (if) the problem of evil says you should be anything but a traditional Christian, I’ll take it.

Well, that's a slightly different response to Kemi Badenoch's atheistic reaction to the problem of suffering and it is one, as we shall see in Part II of this two part series, which challenge's Andrew's apologetic. 

***

Andrew Ollerton: No doubt we all share Kemi Badenoch’s moral outrage at this horrific crime. But must we also share her atheist conclusions? In the dark of evil and suffering, is belief in God morally justifiable?

My Comment: According to Myers the question has changed to this: Is belief in a Christian God morally justifiable?  But more about that in Part II. What now follows is what Andrew calls his Logical Response to Kemi B. 

***

Andrew Ollerton: Firstly, some logic. If God does not exist then the universe consists of nothing but motion, matter and blind chance. Moreover, without God moral concepts such as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are arbitrary and carry little weight.

My Comment: Not quite in my view! Without God the universe consists of nothing but a meaningless patchwork of conscious sensations and yet which appear to be coherently organized by an inexplicable set of succinct and elegant laws, the mystery of whose origins is unsolved and in fact is logically unsolvable by mere descriptive science without getting into an "algorithms-all-the-way-down" regress. Moreover, particles, motion, space, chance and matter are not fundamental; rather they are mathematical constructions made conceptually possible by the organization of experience, but the true nature of the "thing-in-itself-ness" associated with these constructions is obscure; these objects are only known through our perceptions and conceptions.*

And yet in spite of that, concepts of right and wrong can be derived from conscious cognition in so far as the compulsions of sentience quickly teaches us what constitutes bad experiences to be avoided and which, in that sense, can be classified as "wrong". It's no doubt a crude gauge as to what is morally right and wrong, but it's a start.... the qualia of conscious cognition naturally categorizes experiences as "bad" or "wrong" whether we believe in a deity or not. In fact we can go a bit further: If we have some idea as to what is "bad" for us, then  given our ability to get into the the minds of others we are able to extrapolate, at least to some extent, as to what is also bad for them. 

However, the foregoing is no complete fix for the questions of morality because the long term ramifications of human action for the conscious cognition of both ourselves and others may be difficult to work out for epistemically challenged human beings. But acknowledging  the existence of the role of pre-existing sentience in defining morality gets the moral ball rolling; it's a pointer that right and wrong are not completely arbitrary constructions carrying little weight.  But this conclusion is based on the assumed existence of sentience, a sentience which touches, feels and thinks.  

***

Andrew Ollerton: As C.S. Lewis noted, the assumption that a line is crooked implies the existence of a straight line. To say that someone’s actions are morally ‘wrong’ presupposes a ‘right’ way. Otherwise, all human behaviour is just ‘natural’. 

My Comment:  My guess is that both theists and atheists would identify the origins of morality in the social accommodation & reconciliation of the conscious feelings of themselves with that of other humans; in this connection the Golden Rule is universally understood as the basic heuristic of morality. However, the fair implementation of the Golden Rule in community is not straightforward and Christians would likely appeal to God's omnipotent perception of society for the finer points of such an implementation. But the beginnings of the moral "straight-line" which Andrew speaks of is to be found in the consciences of both atheists and theists. 

What ought to be clear, however, is that moral rights or wrongs don't exist simply because God, apparently for arbitrary reasons, labels them as such. Rather, I would propose that God declares what is right and wrong based on deep social implications which emerge from the Golden Rule, a rule which only makes sense given, a priori, the  existence of conscious cognition, a context where it is meaningful to talk of good and bad experiences. 

Contrast the former with the views of fundamentalist theme park manager Ken Ham, who comes close to defining morality  simply in terms of rules invented by God without acknowledging the deeper "Golden Rule" logic behind these rules.  Poor old Ken seems to have got no further with his concept of morality than something being "right" or "wrong" simply because "God said so". Yes, God lays down the law, but the motivations driving this law are be found in a community of beings who touch and feel and must reconcile the conflicts of interest which inevitably result of living together.  

***

Andrew Ollerton: If Kemi Badenoch no longer believes in God, then what grounds her belief in morality and why is she so angered by evil and injustice? Atheism cannot explain our feelings of moral outrage. What Josef Fritzl did to his daughter was not ‘Wrong’ with a capital W unless we believe there is a ‘Right’ way for a father to treat his daughter.

My Comment: Suffering doesn't need to be labelled as wrong by God: It argues for itself as wrong, just as one's experience of say the colour red argues for itself as red and isn't "red" simply because it is called "red".  My guess then is that Ms. Badenoch has strong in-built instincts about the suffering associated with injustice and evil and these remain as the basis of her morality whether she believes in God or not. True, as a Christian I believe these instincts are created and maintained by the God of creation just as is the rising of the Sun. But disbelief in God doesn't mean to say moral urges go away, although like the rest of the cosmos their sheer existence is inexplicable to bland atheism.

***

Andrew Ollerton: Equally, Fritzl can only be brought to justice if he was responsible for his actions and not merely subject to genetics, brain chemistry, and primal urges. In short, the reason we have a problem with evil is because we believe in a good God. This still leaves us wrestling with many mysteries. But to reject God because of evil is to saw off the very branch we are sitting on. 

My Comment: Fritzl is responsible for his actions even if they have "causes" in genetics, brain chemistry and primal urges. (One of those primal urges is the ability of most human beings to empathetically extrapolate feelings to other humans). See my series of articles on freewill and predestination for more on this subject (See here, here and here)

I disagree: The reason we have a problem with "evil" is not because we believe in a good God, but because we have strong empathetic instincts about the effect of evil on conscious cognition, and these instincts are common to both theists and atheists. I would agree however that such instincts are sourced & maintained by God and that without God empathetic moral behavior not only appears anomalous but has no apparent absolute anchoring. Its existence is as perplexing as the origins and maintenance of the laws of physics. For in a cosmos where a survival "ethic" is the only constraint on the dynamics of existence, standard "Golden Rule" morality has no logically obliging basis (See The Riddle of the Sphinx)

.....to be continued

Footnote

* The subtle twist here is that we find we can describe the formal structure of our conscious cognition in terms of these mathematical constructions.

North American Intelligent Design and Rule by Diktat

"F*ck climate science!"

A post on the North American Intelligent Design website Evolution News is apparently in favour of the idea is that the Smithsonian Institute is being called to heel by the Trump Administration. Here are some quotes (with my emphases) from the article & accompanied by my comments. 

***

Evolution News: New Criterion editor Roger Kimball rightly takes issue with the assumption that correcting the problems with the Smithsonian Institution is a mere “footnote” to a larger agenda. On the contrary, he sees it as being of “central” importance. 

My Comment: What is that larger agenda and why is kicking the Smithsonian into line of central importance? The Evolution News article then quotes Roger Kimball....

Roger Kimball: The Trump administration just announced that it would be conducting a detailed "internal review" of the Smithsonian's exhibitions and curatorial practices in order to root out wokeness and return the sprawling agglomeration of museums to their founding purpose (on who's say so, I wonder?).  It is part of the fulfillment of [Trump's] Executive Order to abolish the racist and divisive practice of DEI.  [See picture] below.....

Click to enlarge.

My Comment:  My take on the subject of "Wokeness" can be seen here. (The term is used as an alarmist political rallying cry by the far right - whom one might refer to as the "unwoke".).  See also here. 

Whatever one's opinion of Western society's current malaise and its philosophical disquiet, it is in fact an ethos which has slowly evolved since the enlightenment (and ironically it may even have its roots in the Reformation with the latter's emphasis on individualism, self-determination and freedom of conscience). But, one thing is clear: This ethos hasn't been imposed by centralised diktat, but as the above quote actually acknowledges it's evolution was a gradual process. In contrast I read the above as very much in favour of our aspiring would-be-dictator Trump commandeering the institutions of education in favour of what is likely to be an imposed "unwoke" agenda. To the credit of the conservatives mentioned, they have shied away from the methods of diktat because it is likely they have understood it to be an attack on the hard won democracy of the Western world. It's no surprise that the Putin admiring Donald Trump "understands" the world of commandeering. 

The article continues as follows....

Evolution News: Denying human exceptionalism is intended to make human visitors to the museum feel animal-like and without special dignity. Though phrased in scientific terms, that’s as corrosive a message as the rest of the radical messaging.

My Comment:  Pointing out that human life is very much of a piece with the animal kingdom doesn't necessarily conflict with human exceptionalism. As I don't trust the alarmist assessments of the "unwoke" I would want to see chapter and verse where the Smithsonian explicitly rules out that humans are "animals++" or "animals 2.0". They may actually leave answering that big religious and very controversial question to visitor opinion; that would be the democratic way. 

Yes, that's right, I don't trust the stuff that Evolution News comes up with either. Some of its pundits are not what I would consider to be sufficiently competent (See here). I suspect that the above quote is working from a naïve "God did it xor evolution did it" dichotomy.

Evolution News: Arguably, it’s more corrosive, in that it attacks something — being human — that’s far more fundamental than being American. Social restoration, so urgently needed, can’t be accomplished if the public is consistently being told we are little better than animals in the forest. In telling us that, over and over, our institutions of science education train us to act like animals. And in that, they are succeeding.

My Comment:  Oh yes, the ethos that we are no more that animals in a meaningless and purposeless universe is corrosive of society. But to my mind the "unwoke" MAGA agenda is even more corrosive as it tries to usher in a government which attempts to fix "problems" by diktat. Aping the criminal and lying Putin regime is the direction I fear MAGA is going: Putin is to Russian Orthodoxy as Trump is to North American evangelicalism.

In comparison I have a lot more sympathy for genuine atheists such as this who have become captive to an all but empty philosophy and yet who have no intention of "correcting the problem" of theism by commandeering churches. In contrast does Evolution News, by identifying itself with the Trumpism, aim to impose upon us its philosophy of classic dualism? 

INTERESTING LINKS

1. "Trumptruth" trumps truth

When you don't like the news shoot the messenger boy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2dj217z2w6o

2. A creeping Dictatorship?

Step back and take it in: the US is entering full authoritarian mode

3. Trump Scared of Putin?

The global struggle of Democracy vs Autocracy and the weakness of Trump

Just one man can stop Russia's war on Ukraine, warns expert - and it's not Trump or Putin

4. Trump acolyte Bannon talks up civil war in the UK!

Bannon, like Putin may actually want to see a civil war in the UK.

Britain is on the brink of civil war, says Steve Bannon

Let's recall that Bannon has a favourable view of Russia's dictator.  See this quote from Wiki....

Bannon has defended Trump's ties to and praise for Russian president Vladimir Putin.[399][422] He expressed a belief that traditionalists see Russia as an ally. Bannon said they "believe that at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he's trying to do it in a form of nationalism—and I think that people, particularly in certain countries, want to see the sovereignty for their country. They want to see nationalism for their country" rather than a "pan-European Union".[422] According to the book War for Eternity, Bannon met Russian far-right political philosopher Aleksandr Dugin in Rome in 2018 to advocate closer relations between the United States and Russia, as well as Traditionalist philosophy.[423][424] Bannon supports closer ties to Russia to ally them against China.

To bad about allying with Russia against China, Bannon old son! Looks as though Putin has found his true friends.

5. I hope this isn't true

I've often wondered if Trump is his own man or if foreign powers have a hold over him. After all he seems powerless re: the Ukraine War. 

Putin has 'kompromat' file on Trump, says ex-KGB agent

But then there is this with Bannon taking a predictable view:

MAGA faithful turn on Trump over Ukraine policy shift

Mike Pence gives a warning....

Mike Pence has ‘no doubt’ Russia will attack Nato country if successful in Ukraine

6.  Stirring up Xenophobic Emotions

The following list of characters who have had a tendency (or more than a tendency in some cases) to exploit fears around unfavored "outgroups". They identify these "outgroups" as the people to blame for one's problems and discontent.  They use these fears to drum up a strong group identification.

At some stage it's worth me expanding on this subject more fully as the social exploitation of xenophobic emotions and "home team" identification is common to both political autocrats and religious cult leaders. Needless to say Adolf Hitler was the prototypical model for this kind of behavior.

Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Nigel Farage, Kim Jong Un, Noel Stanton, David Berg, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Ken Ham....etc

The Marxist, Anarchist and Libertarian Pipe Dream.

The "libertarian" notion that human society can somehow do without the interference of centralized information and control, especially given the latter's potential for being a resource of corrupt authoritarianism, is a yearning of many political idealists. As the above schema suggests (which I've cribbed from Wiki) "libertarianism" is an ideal which crosses the left-right fault-line and crops up among both left and right political agitators. I'm not quite sure why this common hankering exists; at a guess it's something do with instincts left-over from the time of those folksy communal freedoms which were the lot of hunter-gatherer communities. It is very tempting to dream about hunter-gatherer fireside life, a life which knew no ramifying cloud capp'd towers of information & control and where, best of all, in an intimate community there was little social anonymity: So, finding a sense of belonging, and an appreciated role where one could leave one's mark on society was a lot easier. 

At this juncture I can't help thinking of the relevance and mythical  meaningfulness of the Biblical Edenic story where it seems our erring fruit gathering ancestors were cast out of their original idyllic garden environment before they were fully ready to start populating & subduing the chaotic & imperfect earth. (See Gen 1:28). As it was to turn out, humanity then faced the double problem of not only subduing the earth but also subduing its own nature, as the subsequent books and chapters of the Bible illustrate.

Adam and Eve's post-Edenic sexual union produced the agriculturalists Cain and Abel. Cain was an arable farmer and Abel a pastoralist. After murdering Abel Cain was driven from his farm fearing popular vengeance for Abel's murder. But in spite of his crime God promised his protection and Cain went onto to build a city (Genesis 4:17). Building a city would imply that he was exploiting not only an efficient agricultural base but also had available the techniques of centralized information & control (such as writing) required for the successful organization, management and cooperation of the large concentrations of people that city life demands.

Although from Genesis 4 we see hate, vengeance and killing as the post-Edenic themes of the human predicament impeding Project Earth, nevertheless at that time progress in populating and subduing the earth was actually being made: A city was built, and tools of bronze and iron were fashioned. Above all, writing must have been invented to facilitate the centralized information and control necessary for city life. 

And yet the inevitable seedy sleaziness of urban life may have given rise to a yearning for a return to the idealized Edenic idyll before the advent of that signature of post Edenic life; namely, the city with its government, its appetite for information & control and its tendency toward collateral squalor.  But these are not the core problem of the East of Eden experience; they are only correlates. The heart of the problem is Sin, the word with the "I" in the middle (See the Book of Romans).

Conflating the correlates with the core problem of the human predicament is idealistic libertarianism's big mistake. This becomes clearer when we look at the following signature issues of right-leaning libertarianism, namely ....

* A tendency to believe in deep state conspiracy theorism. 

* Climate science skepticism - Climate science may be seen as a deep state disinformation campaign to excuse enhancing centralised information and control. 

* A priori opposition to pandemic lockdowns; again these lockdowns may be seen as part of a deep state hoax to excuse increasing centralized  control. 

* Belief in small government if not no government at all, sometimes to the point of anarchy. 

* Belief in a very unregulated free market; that's an oxymoron if there ever was one! A market can't function without standardization and agreement of standards, not to mention regulating the exploitation of workers, exploitation which fuels Marxist unrest.  

* Skepticism toward the institutions of society; e.g. the media,  academia, education, science institutions, politicians, health institutions, big business, the police.

* Little acknowledgement of the paradoxes of free-speech.

* Little acknowledgement that the high organization of complex adaptive systems (cf. organisms) make use of both distributed and centralized information & control. 

The above are part of a malaise which tends to view regulation, high social organization, government and the like (that is social information and control) as part of the problem rather than the solution. But for me information and control is neither the problem nor the solution; the problem is in the individual units which make up communities; namely human beings with their temptations to serve self first. When the latter is combined with the very natural epistemic challenges humanity faces we have on our hands a very explosive mix..... the human predicament.

Some of the above points are also very much part of left-wing libertarianism; in particular, a belief in the conspiracy of the owning classes, suspicion of the media, academia, large corporations, politicians and government in general - all of which are trappings of urban life, but to the leftist they will be seen as conniving with the owners of the means of production who are exploiting the working class. The Marxist doctrine is that in the structural levelling of society conflicts of interest between classes will dissolve and peace and harmony will reign. The abstraction behind this belief is that once you get the systems of society right the human problems will come out in the wash; that there is such a thing as a problematical human nature (which has its roots in the first person perspective) is at best considered irrelevant and at worst denied an existence.  

And finally an opinion I've expressed before: In their endeavor to purge society of centralized information and control in favour of distributed information and control libertarians face the irony of helping to create a power vacuum which sucks in would-be libertarian autocrats.

NOTE

I've published the following note on libertarian leaning James Knight's blog post here...

The Philosophical Muser: A Flawed Idea About Billionaires

What you are suggesting here may well work with somebody like Bill Gates who as far as I can tell has a sense of philanthropy and purpose (although the far right conspiracy theorists and Marxists will likely disagree!). As the centralised controller of high wealth he has done us well and is also concerned about world health. So no complaints there from me; If I were a billionaire I’d try to emulate him. See also Tim Coldwell from my Xenotron Case Study.

But Musk is a very different kettle of fish and he gives every impression of using his wealth to seek centralised power. This is where the marginal utility argument breaks down completely: For a start how can we measure the marginal utility of power? If we can define the analogue of a power-measure of marginal utility we would almost certainly have to re-calibrate our notion of it. Moreover, I doubt such a measure would decay at the rate of the elementary economics concept of marginal utility; in fact it may well increase with increasing wealth!

As you may have guessed I’m not very impressed with economics as an exact science; it gives us some rough rules of thumb…. guidelines and not tramlines. Moreover, its quantification measures aren’t very useful when it comes to the human thirst for power, status, influence, reputation and that whole cluster of motivations which revolve around social relations. However, I wouldn’t go as far as saying economics is bunk, but any pretense it might have to being a complete quantified description of the social dynamic breaks down in the human relational zone.