Pages

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Chaos, Weather, and the Problem of Evil

In comments on my previous post (The God Wouldn’t Do X Fallacy), I made reference to a point I wish to develop further here. As another tool to help understand the points I’m making, you might want to familiarize yourself with Time and Again, a short story I originally wrote in 2003. (That story will function as an analogy of the argument I will present here; it is not necessary to read it to understand the argument though.)

The Chaos Theory was popularized in the late 1980s and early 1990s by non-fiction authors such as James Gleick (Chaos: Making A New Science, 1988), as well as fictional works like Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park. We’ve also seen the concepts in various movies, like The Butterfly Effect, named for a concept straight out of meteorologist Edward Lorenz’s computer weather models. Although exaggerated, the concept is that if a butterfly flaps its wings in China, in six months the weather in New York will be different from what it would have been (the exaggeration is merely on the length of time, not on the fact that there would be a difference).

In reality, this echoes back to a concept that humans have known for some time. For instance, in the parable that most school children know, we’re told: “For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe, the horse was lost; for what of a horse, the rider was lost; for want of a rider, the battle was lost; for want of a battle, the war was lost; for want of a war, the kingdom was lost.” Ultimately, losing the nail caused the loss of the kingdom.

In essence, therefore, the chaos theory is built on the fact that small variations in the initial conditions of a complex system will cause, over time, extreme variations. For the purposes of this argument, we will look strictly at the nature of weather as applied to history.

Since weather is a complex system, then it is true that a butterfly flapping its wings will alter weather over time. This is due to the fact that certain air molecules will collide with other air molecules that would not have been touched without the movement of the butterfly’s wings. Over time, these small changes build up, until the end result is vastly different from what it would have been. Thus, we know that if we sneeze, we have changed the weather at some point in the future from what it would have been. Unfortunately, we do not know how the weather is changed. In essence, it’s like shuffling a deck of already shuffled cards. We know that the outcome is changed by the extra shuffle, but we do not know how it has changed.

When dealing with time, specifically in the aspect of time travel, we often run into paradoxes. For instance, most of us have heard the problem of a man going back in time and accidentally killing his grandfather before his father was born. Since his father was never born, it means that the original man was never born either. But if the original man was never born, then he never existed to go back in time to kill his grandfather. Which means that his father was born, and the man did exist to go back in time to kill his grandfather, etc.

But the aspect that is overlooked is the fact that one does not need to go back in time and actively kill one’s grandfather for this to happen. If someone went back in time, the very fact that he existed in that time changes the very weather from what would have happened, just as surely as a butterfly’s wings changes the weather. The difference now, however, is that those in the future can see the effects. That is, it’s like someone who has been dealt a hand of cards going back in time and shuffling the deck before it’s dealt. He now can see that the cards handed are different. And those differences not only can add up to various extreme differences, but invariably must.

Weather can often be fatal. We just had fatal tornadoes in the news, and a fatal cold snap. Frosts and draughts are responsible for great quantities of lost food, which can lead to famines. Even if these changes do not occur immediately, simply “popping” into existence in a previous time will cause those events to be different. Famines that occurred before now don’t, whereas times that had no famines now receive famines.

Couple this with the idea of people meeting and falling in love, and you can see where the paradox can come back into play. Suppose that you go back in time a sufficient distance such that your popping into existence has sufficient time to alter the weather globally in minute ways. If your grandfather is killed by a draught before your father was born, you have the same problem as if you actively killed him. In the same way, if someone else did not die in a famine, becomes a love rival to your grandfather, and your grandmother marries him instead of your grandfather, you are left with the same dilemma. (Indeed, it is actually even more of a dilemma that that, since the individual sperm cell containing your father’s DNA requires a very narrow time frame in which sexual activity could have occurred.)

Now, the purpose of this argument is not to show problems with time travel! It is to demonstrate the vast, complex intricacies of our climate. All of these things had to have happened exactly as they did happen in order for us to be where we are today. And that is where the problem of evil comes into play in this argument.

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, we would not be here today. None of us would. Theoretically, other people may be here in our place; but one thing we know of for sure is that none of us would be. Likewise, if Cain had not murdered Abel, then Abel would have existed in order to change the weather just as surely as a butterfly's wings. All these little “insignificant” details add up over time.

Thus, in order for the world to be at this exact point in history that it current occupies, everything that preceded today cannot have been otherwise.

One final thing to note: the world as it currently exists is not final. It is still moving forward toward an ultimate goal: the goal that God has in place. Logically speaking, if that ultimate goal is the supreme good, then our current world of evil is a necessary step to gaining that goal. As such, in order for God to achieve His highest good, this would be the only means by which He could attain that goal. If this is true, then the atheist arguments against Christianity ring even more hollow than before.

25 comments:

  1. Not very convincing.

    So...I'm supposed to believe that an all-powerful God, master of all time/space, all that is, was, and will be, decided to put in motion a little cosmic play, with little bug-like creatures called humans that wouldn't have any clue of the 'big universal picture,' all for some useful reason?

    Sounds more like a story made up by humans trying to answer the 'big questions' and creating a fairly uninspiring 'god' to answer them.

    But what do I know...I'm just unregenerated scum who hasn't truly been offered the chance to partake in this delicious wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  2. emerging, don't spam an important blog like this with your silly concerns.

    Besides, God is Sovereign, and the issue you are concerned about is playing out EXACTLY as He planned it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "call_me_scum" has a point I've often wanted to ask Christians about. What's with all this "creation is still in progress" business? If an all-powerful God had an idea of what it wanted as a "final product," why not just create that final product? Who is this God person trying to impress?

    All this business of creating being just so they can suffer in torment for eternity seems awfully wasteful as well. There are some pretty big holes in this story, guys. Most publishers wouldn't buy it, objectively speaking.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I suppose, considering the butterfly effect, a draught could cause the loss of many lives, but perhaps what you really meant to say, in this instance, was a drought, not a draught.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't see where anyone yet has addressed why God doesn't do perpetual miracles in the natural world, even granting that nature must act in the ways that it does. If, for instance, God miraculously fed all human beings so they wouldn't have to eat, then 100 million animals wouldn't have to be slaughtered yearly for American consumption alone. (That's just one of many such possibilities). Is your God so "lazy" that he couldn't do this in light of the intense animal suffering in the natural world due to the law of predation?

    This, once again, is obvious, if a good omnipotent God exists.

    ReplyDelete
  6. gray_mouser said:
    ---
    What's with all this "creation is still in progress" business?
    ---

    I wouldn't say "creation is still in progress." As I said, "the world as it currently exists is not final. It is still moving forward toward an ultimate goal." This doesn't mean creation is still occuring; the acts of Creation ended on Day 7 (whether you take that figuratively or literally).

    Gray said:
    ---
    If an all-powerful God had an idea of what it wanted as a "final product," why not just create that final product?
    ---

    First, since God is atemporal, this question is irrelevant.

    Secondly, if you paid attention to the point I was making, the final product requires these steps.

    Thirdly, in a different context many Creationist say that God did just that in the Garden of Eden--that is, when Adam was created he had a "mature" look, the plants were created with size, etc. Yet supposedly the Creationist isn't supposed to argue: "Why couldn't God just make the final product?" It'd be nice to see some consistency :-)

    Gray said:
    ---
    Who is this God person trying to impress?
    ---

    Who says Creation is about impressing anyone?

    Gray said:
    ---
    All this business of creating being just so they can suffer in torment for eternity seems awfully wasteful as well.
    ---

    "Seems" huh? Compared to what? Given my argument about the Chaos Theory, can you give me an example of how the world could be as it is presently without the past being exactly like it has been?

    If your argument isn't relating to this, then your argument is irrelevant to the points I've made here.

    John Loftus said:
    ---
    I don't see where anyone yet has addressed why God doesn't do perpetual miracles in the natural world, even granting that nature must act in the ways that it does.
    ---

    I don't see where anyone yet has addressed why God should do perpetual miracles in the natural world.

    Loftus said:
    ---
    If, for instance, God miraculously fed all human beings so they wouldn't have to eat, then 100 million animals wouldn't have to be slaughtered yearly for American consumption alone.
    ---

    Yes, and if the moon was made of green cheese we could have a giant grilled cheese sandwich.

    You're back to your same recording, Lofty. It's wearing thin.

    ReplyDelete
  7. John Loftus said:

    I don't see where anyone yet has addressed why God doesn't do perpetual miracles in the natural world, even granting that nature must act in the ways that it does.

    John, are you on something? What have we been discussing (non-stop) for the past several months? We've been discussing (1) the Fall, and (2) theodicies. The Fall means that we rejected a world where God constantly makes things right (i.e. a world of perpetual miracles). Theodicies show that certain goods require a world where God doesn't make everything just right.

    In other words, that's just about all we've been talking about. Then you come out of nowhere and say, "What about a perpetual miracle? How come no one has ever talked about that?"

    Now I'm worried. But I'll go ahead and ask: How come atheists never talk about the Problem of Evil? Are they running from it or what? Why doesn't someone talk about suffering?

    ReplyDelete
  8. In general, I agree. One observation I have is that I doubt that God would create time and subject Himself to it in order to continue to create. (Such temporal language with respect to creation outside of time is rather unavoidable.) While activities of God, including His incarnation, are often temporally observable, I would consider that ultimately, God creates transcendently from eternity and not from the present under the umbrella of his creation. This places His sovereign will decidedly above our limited will, which is constrained by creation. It also means that the ends of creation are already established although future time may yet be infinite.

    This also means that any effects that can be construed as "chaotic" within the context of this discourse are well covered in God's nature as Creator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, and if the moon was made of green cheese we could have a giant grilled cheese sandwich.

    You're back to your same recording, Lofty. It's wearing thin.


    And you're back to your same recording, Piketus. It's wearing thin. How does this actually respond to me in a rational way?

    ReplyDelete
  10. You'll notice that young Pike didn't DARE approach my comments....

    also ignored the 'anonymous' comments about god's sovereign control

    Fear...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wood says: In other words, that's just about all we've been talking about. Then you come out of nowhere and say, "What about a perpetual miracle? How come no one has ever talked about that?"

    The answer, David, is that God must prefer this present world to the one we have, since you must admit God could do this. God prefers this present world because he could easily make it different. He prefers it!

    He prefers that we suffer the way we do. Hmmmm. "prefers" How about the word "likes?" He likes it this way. How about the word "enjoys?" He enjoys it. Given everything God knows he enjoys allowing what happens, even a child who dies of Leukemia. He enjoys it. Why not? He prefers it.

    We deserve this world, so he doesn't help alleviate our sufferings. It's best that we suffer. We deserve it. Like a father who spanks his child and say "this hurts me more than it does you," this is an expression of God's love. And you believe this? But rather than merely spanking us, God plucks out our eyes, allows us to be molested and raped and tortured? No father...none...would ever think our sins are so deserving, even the most horrendus ones, allow such sufferings are indiscriminatly throw at us.

    *I lack the words*

    ReplyDelete
  12. Loftus said:
    ---
    How does this actually respond to me in a rational way?
    ---

    It doesn't; it responds to you in the same way you responded to me, which is irrationally.

    Loftus said:
    ---
    The answer, David, is that God must prefer this present world to the one we have, since you must admit God could do this.
    ---

    Or (which is the point you continue to miss) God could prefer the end of being more highly glorified, and therefore He uses these means to that end...

    ReplyDelete
  13. The answer, David, is that God must prefer this present world to the one we have, since you must admit God could do this. God prefers this present world because he could easily make it different. He prefers it!

    LOFTUS: Hey, why doesn't anyone talk about why God doesn't perform a perpetual miracle?

    WOOD: John, where have you been? We've been talking about that for months. How can you say we haven't been talking about this?

    LOFTUS: The answer, David, is that God prefers our world!

    WOOD: ??? I'm not sure how logic works in your world, John. But if your responses work on Planet Loftus, it must be a frightening place. I see why you complain about your world so much.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Planet Loftus? You mean I have a planet? I like it. Where is it? I want to live on it a rule.

    But you continue to misunderstand me, and the only thing I can think of is that you're mainly thinking about how you can argue against me.

    For the broken record, the 8th time (see I didn't exaggerate), I am not complaining about this world, at least MY world. I love life. It's great!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Loftus said:

    I am not complaining about this world, at least MY world. I love life. It's great!

    Sweet. So you're not complaining about the suffering you see around you. You love life. It's great. Well, if life is great, then you have a lot to be thankful for. It turns out that the world isn't so bad after all. The Problem of Evil, then, should be restated as follows:

    God has given us a wonderful world, which John Loftus absolutely loves. But John would like a world that's just a little better, even though this world is awesome.

    That's not a very big problem. I won't let you go back on what you said.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Loftus,

    "Planet Loftus? You mean I have a planet? I like it. Where is it? I want to live on it a rule."

    Loftus, it's the dream world you live in. You know, the one where you wish you were a dog.

    Here boy! Arf! What's that? Timmy's traped in a well shaft? Ruff ruff! We need to go now? Grrr, ruff!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Call me scum,

    "Sounds more like a story made up by humans trying to answer the 'big questions' and creating a fairly uninspiring 'god' to answer them."

    So this story which is supposed to be so unbelievable, so irrational, so antithetical to our human morality and sensibilities, so degrating to humans, was actually made up by humans, and then they went around pretedning it was real and adding to the story for over a thousand years?

    Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say. Sorry, even though I'm an atheist, that story is more unbelievable than the Bible. Would you make up a story like that? Would John Loftus? Would Michael Martin? Would Bertand Russell? Would the idiots down the street? No. In fact, every human I have ever known, makes up stories where humans are the star attraction. The heroes. See, even you show how antithetical it is to human nature by mocking the idea that humans are scum via your handle.

    What a knee slaper your post was. You're a real riot.

    I mean, I can see why humans made up Santa Clause, but the God of the Bible? Naw. I'm an atheist and I aint even buying that. I have a better naturalistic explanation (and a more believable one). I think el chupacabra gave it to the early humans on Atlantis.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous above:

    I'm a Christian, and I think you're a moron. You said:

    "In fact, every human I have ever known, makes up stories where humans are the star attraction. The heroes."

    You know lots of humans that make up stories about the origins of the universe? Weirdo.

    And El Chupacabra? Are you some atheist X-files nerd?

    I'm a Christian, and I know I'm right, because its in the book, baby!

    God Said It. Bible Wrote It. That Settles It.

    Beeyotch.

    ReplyDelete
  19. David, I think Ellis is right about you. I've known people like you before. They are the typical athletic jocks who don't have the intellectual muscle to proverbially punch their way out of a brown paper sack.

    After everything I've said Wood says: God has given us a wonderful world, which John Loftus absolutely loves. But John would like a world that's just a little better, even though this world is awesome.

    That's not a very big problem. I won't let you go back on what you said.


    You, my friend, are a moron. I am wasting my time with you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. David, see the comments here for what a couple people have said about you.

    I have just revised my own understanding of you, downward. I should've seen what was obvious about you.

    I don't believe you will make any contribution to this issue. My hopes about you have just been dashed. Sorry, my friend, but that's what I think.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I love how quickly Loftus manages to lose an argument and resort to ad hominem.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Although Loftus likes to brag about what a liberating experience it was to leave the faith, and how he now leads a guilt-free existence, you can see that Loftus is a bitter, angry man. And his new mission in life is to convert everyone else to his aimless, vacuous outlook on life.

    One of his basic problems is that he has invested the best years of his life in training for something he no longer believes in. He has a set of useless degrees. He had his life all planned out, but the plans have fallen through, and his has no fallback.

    Seminary degrees, but no seminary would hire him now because he's an apostate.

    He was on his way to a professional career or tenure track position as a Christian apologist or seminary prof. until he lost his faith.

    So, now he's middle-aged, with his original ambitions in shambles, and he's too old to start a second career. Everything he ever worked went down the drain. He can't go back. And he can't go forward. He shot his radiator full of holes in the middle of Death Valley.

    And, of course, he denies the afterlife. No wonder he’s’ miserable.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Wow, Steve. You and Dr Phil should collaborate on a book or TV show...you nailed it!

    I was about to offer my psychobabble into your existence, but realized it was too sad to put into words.

    But remember, we're all just acting out the Lord's Sovereign Plan.

    Glory.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Wow, that link sure was worth reading. Thanks, Mr Loftus.

    I'm sure David Wood will be devastated to find out that Heather and Ed have lost confidence in him. It'll take years of counselling to get over this. Lets just hope he's covered by Medicaid, eh? His academic career is ruined, ruined I tell you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. THE ACTION SO FAR:

    DAVID: Let's talk about the Problem of Evil, John.

    JOHN: I don't see why God would create such an awful place! The world is awful! Awful I tell you!

    DAVID: That's pretty pessimistic. I don't share your pessimistic view of the world. Why do you hate the world so much?

    JOHN: Wait! Did I come across as a pessimist and a world-hater? Darn, that might hurt my image. Well then, I love the world! Yep, I love it! It's a great world! No pessimism here!

    DAVID: Well, if the world is so great, you don't have much to complain about. You should be thankful for the world you love so much.

    JOHN: You idiot! You stupid, stiff, pompous moron! You dumb 260 pound jock nit-wit! You must have bullied your way into a PhD program, you ignorant twit! You and Manata are just jocks! You'll probably both beat your wives! Beat them, I tell you!

    STEVE: Loftus sounds like a bitter, angry man.

    PASTOR TED: What are you, Steve, some sort of head-shrinker or something?

    ReplyDelete