INTRODUCTION
Four final arguments Draper has that are directly related to the implications of Darwinian evolution are as follows:
“Consider, for example, what we know about the good of knowledge (and the corresponding evil of ignorance). Human beings know a lot about their immediate environment and about other matters upon which their survival directly depends. Our cognitive faculties are, however, much less reliable when it comes to moral and religious matters. Surely this is much more surprising on theism than on (Darwinian) naturalism.
Or consider the moral qualities of human beings. Humans are as a rule very strongly disposed--I'm tempted to say "hard-wired"--to act selfishly. They are instinctively much more concerned about their own interests than about the interests of others. They do possess some altruistic tendencies, but these are typically very limited. This combination of a deeply ingrained selfishness and limited altruism can be given a plausible Darwinian explanation, but is very hard to understand if, for example, God wants human beings, through the exercise of their free wills, to make substantial moral progress in their short time on earth.
Generally speaking, the pattern of good and evil in the world appears quite random from a moral point of view. It does not systematically promote or reflect any discernible moral ends. This fact is further evidence for naturalism, because, while it is compatible with theism, it is exactly what one would expect on naturalism. As David Hume wrote, "The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind nature, impregnated by a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children." Hume (being dead) will not object if I replace his colorful appeal to a "blind nature impregnated by a great vivifying principle" with the more specific thesis of Darwinian naturalism.”[1]
[1] Paul Draper, The Great Debate http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_draper/evil.html
Four final arguments Draper has that are directly related to the implications of Darwinian evolution are as follows:
“Consider, for example, what we know about the good of knowledge (and the corresponding evil of ignorance). Human beings know a lot about their immediate environment and about other matters upon which their survival directly depends. Our cognitive faculties are, however, much less reliable when it comes to moral and religious matters. Surely this is much more surprising on theism than on (Darwinian) naturalism.
Or consider the moral qualities of human beings. Humans are as a rule very strongly disposed--I'm tempted to say "hard-wired"--to act selfishly. They are instinctively much more concerned about their own interests than about the interests of others. They do possess some altruistic tendencies, but these are typically very limited. This combination of a deeply ingrained selfishness and limited altruism can be given a plausible Darwinian explanation, but is very hard to understand if, for example, God wants human beings, through the exercise of their free wills, to make substantial moral progress in their short time on earth.
Generally speaking, the pattern of good and evil in the world appears quite random from a moral point of view. It does not systematically promote or reflect any discernible moral ends. This fact is further evidence for naturalism, because, while it is compatible with theism, it is exactly what one would expect on naturalism. As David Hume wrote, "The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind nature, impregnated by a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children." Hume (being dead) will not object if I replace his colorful appeal to a "blind nature impregnated by a great vivifying principle" with the more specific thesis of Darwinian naturalism.”[1]
[1] Paul Draper, The Great Debate http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_draper/evil.html
ASSESSMENT OF DRAPER’S ARGUMENT
Again, notice that my argument from a previous post about the metaphysical necessity of evolution, and the fact that natural selection probably has to be at least largely responsible for the development of biological complexity, even on theism (as shown in my post titled: Evolution is Antecedently More Probable on Naturalism), would raise the probability of theism given the observations of our limited altruistic tendencies, moral and religious knowledge, and the apparent systematic lack of any discernable moral ends on Earth to be as high as these same facts on Darwinian naturalism. The latter would be unsurprising because if God has to use evolution, then it wouldn’t be surprising if natural selection was blind to God’s morally sufficient reasons that would justify those anomalous cases in the world that do not systematically promote or reflect discernable moral ends while our social/moral interactions with human beings would still be reliable. Moreover, in my previous posts on Draper’s arguments (Evolution is Antecedently More Probable on Naturalism, Flourishing and Languishing of Sentient Life, and Pain and Pleasure) I believe I have shown that the world PREDOMINANTLY, although not systematically (because of certain facts about pain and pleasure related to moral agents), promotes or reflects discernable moral ends. I believe this is even more plausible when we consider the following theodicy; especially in relation to our innately limited altruistic, and moral and religious knowledge.
CONNECTIONS OF SIGNIFICANCE THEODICY[1]: While I believe I have shown in previous posts that there actually are discernable moral ends to the history and evolution of sentient life on Earth (Flourishing and Languishing of Sentient Life & Evolution is Antecedently More Probable On Naturalism) even if God didn’t have to use evolution, Darwinian or not, I haven’t said anything to show that even if God didn’t have to use evolution, Darwinian or not, that there are discernable moral ends in relation to these further facts about limited altruistic tendencies, and limited moral and religious knowledge in human beings. I would like to do that now.
MEANING IN LIFE: In his book, Meaning in Life, Thaddeus Metz gives the most detailed and up to date theory of what makes a concrete human life meaningful. He says,
“In this chapter, I have developed a new theory of what makes a life meaningful, roughly according to which meaning in life is a matter of positively orienting one’s and other’s rational structure towards fundamental objects, conditions of human existence that are largely responsible for many other of its conditions. I have argued that this theory plausibly captures the meaningfulness of morality, enquiry, and creativity, and that it not only avoids the major counterexamples to all other theories of life’s meaning, but also incorporates their salient kernels of truth.”[2]
Thus, it is primarily in those areas in which we are limited that both the pursuit of decreasing those limitations and the actual achievements therein will constitute a life that is meaningful, or significant.
CONNECTIONS OF APPRECIATION, CONTRIBUTION, and INTIMACY: A connection is a special sort of relation between persons resulting from the web, or matrix of actions, pursuits, accomplishments, and consequences that the pursuit of, and actual concrete living of a meaningful life bring with it. Specifically, the connections of appreciation, contribution, and intimacy formed by virtuous responses to the three kinds of limitations Draper draws our attention to carry with them a deep and largely positive degree of significance. According to Robin Collins:
“The connection of appreciation occurs when one has appreciation and gratitude for another person because of what that person has done.
The connection of contribution occurs whenever a person significantly contributes to the welfare of others.
The connection of intimacy often occurs or accompanies the connection of appreciation and contribution because it often produces a sense of intimate interconnection between contributor and recipient in that each becomes ‘a part’ of the other’s life.”[3]
Collins gives the following mathematical model too show the eternal positive value such connections can add to a human life individually as well as between the entire human race:
“Suppose our future life can be divided into small successive units of time, ^t. Now suppose that for each ^t, the conscious experience of some particular positive [achievement and] connection has an intrinsic value of ^G. Assuming that these successive intrinsic goods can be summed, the sum will continue to grow as long as the [achievement and] connection remains part of one’s ongoing experience. Even if the good of these [achievements and] connections only sums to a finite value in an infinite time, that finite value is larger than the total disvalue of any costs that the possibility of [these limitations] for a finite time brings with it in order for these [opportunities for achievements and] connections to exist. And certainly this is plausible.”[4]
Let’s now consider two good objections to this theodicy.
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES OBJECTION: Someone should object that there are other ways these types of connections could have been formed in a world without limitations on altruism, and moral and religious knowledge that would have been similar in value.
RESPONSE: A world in which humanity did not start with somewhat limited altruistic tendencies, and religious and moral knowledge would be one that lacked the corresponding types of meaning-transformative connection, even if it contained other types of connections. The connections listed form a family of irreplaceable goods. This response however encounters the opportunity cost objection.
OPPORTUNITY COST OBJECTION: These connections only come at the cost of other positive connections being formed that do not require limited altruism, and moral and religious knowledge. To respond to this objection it will be useful to add two more theses:
i.“Effort-Sacrifice Thesis: Everything else being equal, achievements, (and ongoing connections of contribution, appreciation, and intimacy) formed by growth in altruism, moral, and religious understanding that requires more sacrifice or effort have greater value (per unit time) than those that do not.
In support of the Effort-Sacrifice Thesis we can say that limited altruism, and limited religious and moral knowledge brings with it the possibility of achievements which require substantially contouring one’s intellectual, creative, and rational self in the search for fundamental truths about meaning in life (which I will argue is intrinsically valuable in and of itself and significance or meaning conferring) in a way that requires hard work, devotion, and sophisticated planning in a way that a less limited beginning in these domains would have eliminated. There is something much more valuable in creating and discovering new theories about important truths regarding ultimate objects of inquiry, and expanding the circle of moral concern through effort and sacrifice compared to being given a nature you aren’t responsible where all these things come completely naturally.
ii. Variety Thesis: a) Everything else being equal, the value of a set of positive achievements, (and connections of contribution, appreciation, and intimacy) increases with the variety of connections in the set. b) In general, the broader the type that a particular achievement and new connections adds to the mix, the more variety it adds.”[5]
In support of the Variety Thesis we can say that it is plausibly true since we “...think there is something missing in a life that merely involves a repetition of the same types of good and activities over and over again, or is merely focused on a relationship with one person.” So then, “In general, we take a variety--as long as it contributes to a sufficiently unified whole--to contribute to the richness of a person’s life, and hence be of a value.”
Lastly, I think this objection has it exactly backwards. Once we reach maturity in these three areas we can then form connections resulting from that mature state. However, if we hadn’t started out with these limitations, then we would never be able to form them.
STARTING POINTS AND PROGRESSION: Looking at the issue historically and evolutionarily, had we been started much further along in the process or worse, been given properly basic access to all the truths in these areas, then according to the effort-sacrifice and variety thesis we wouldn’t have been able to form any, or at least, much shallower connections of ACI in these areas. It is hard to know what the optimal balance between the degree of ‘darkness’ as a starting point in these areas and any greater positive connections it allows, but it seems plausible to think what CSR, and sociobiology have revealed about the starting point of human nature may very well allow for an optimal or choiceworthy number of connections of this sort that greatly increases opportunities for total significance. Two questions present themselves at this point: 1-Does human nature allow for such progress, and 2-Has it been happening?
HUMAN NATURE: Given the resources our planet has for technology, and the privileged location of Earth in time and space, and our ability to use reason, the human race as a whole has made great progress in the domains of religious and moral knowledge that shows no signs of slowing down. What about altruism? Our human nature is such that the potential for our altruistic circle of concern to expand is unlimited, “…evolution is open ended… [and] A new characteristic that is “abnormal” now might be the basis for a new nature in the future. The capacities for learning and cultural transmission in humans give this evolutionary openness and extra dimension...[so that] existence (the actual events of human life) precedes essence (any inscribed nature or “conception of man).” This fact is more probable on theism than on naturalism. A second prediction on theism, but not on naturalism, is that this circle of altruism has been expanding. Has it?
PROGRESSIVE VIEW OF HISTORY: No doubt this position assumes a progressive view of history so the question becomes, do we see such progress? In the domain of religious and moral truth, I think it is obvious that the human race has made great progress. The circle of altrusim has been expanding as well, moving from kin and kith to reciprocal altruism, to nation, and progressing towards the entire globe and who knows, maybe even all sentient life one day:
“Optimistic interpretation of historical data
Stephen Pinker argues that violence, including tribal warfare, homicide, cruel punishments, child abuse, animal cruelty, domestic violence, lynching, pogroms, and international and civil wars, has decreased over multiple scales of time and magnitude [Pinker]. Pinker considers it unlikely that human nature has changed. In his view, it is more likely that human nature comprises inclinations toward violence and those that counteract them, the "better angels of our nature". He outlines six 'major historical declines of violence' which all have their own socio/cultural/economic causes (Stephen Pinker)
1. The Pacification Process – Pinker describes this as the transition from "the anarchy of hunting, gathering, and horticultural societies … to the first agricultural civilizations with cities and governments, beginning around five thousand years ago" which brought "a reduction in the chronic raiding and feuding that characterized life in a state of nature and a more or less fivefold decrease in rates of violent death."
2. The Civilizing Process – Pinker argues that "between the late Middle Ages and the 20th century, European countries saw a tenfold-to-fiftyfold decline in their rates of homicide". Pinker attributes the idea of the Civilizing Process to the sociologist Norbert Elias, who "attributed this surprising decline to the consolidation of a patchwork of feudal territories into large kingdoms with centralized authority and an infrastructure on commerce"
3. The Humanitarian Revolution – Pinker attributes this term and concept to the historian Lynn Hunt. He says this revolution "unfolded on the [shorter] scale of centuries and took off around the time of the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries" (though he points to historical antecedents and to "parallels elsewhere in the world"). He writes: "It saw the first organized movements to abolish slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killing, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals, together with the first stirrings of systematic pacifism.
4. The Long Peace – a term he attributes to the historian John Lewis Gaddis.This fourth "major transition", Pinker says, "took place after the end of World War II"; in it, he says, "the great powers, and the developed states in general, have stopped waging war on one another"
5. The New Peace – Pinker calls this trend "more tenuous", but "since the end of the Cold War in 1989, organized conflicts of all kinds — civil wars, genocides, repression by autocratic governments, and terrorist attacks — have declined throughout the world".
6. The Rights Revolutions – The postwar period has seen, Pinker argues, "a growing revulsion against aggression on smaller scales, including violence against ethnic minorities, women, children, homosexuals, and animals. These spin-offs from the concept of human rights—civil rights, women's rights, children's rights, gay rights, and animal rights—were asserted in a cascade of movements from the late 1950s to the present day…”[6]
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Any life that has an overall balance of significance leads to connections of appreciation, contribution, and intimacy that last as ongoing, eternal realities between the entire human race (past, present, and future) whose positive value mathematically outweighs the evils of limited altruism, limited ethical and religious knowledge. Indeed, these connections are unique in that they couldn’t have been formed at all without such limitations, and our ability to progressively increase in these areas, and the types of connections formed therein, are so valuable according to the Effort/Sacrifice Thesis and Variety Thesis that they justify God in permitting the limitations to begin with.
In fact, our limitations of altruism, moral and religious knowledge are only more probable on naturalism if we think God weights making substantial moral progress within a human lifetime heavier than each individual human being, as well as the human race as a whole, living lives that are optimally significant. I would tend to think that the latter is more to be expected on theism, but even if it is merely plausible, the aforementioned facts show that all things considered, the evolution, nature, history, and potential future of altruism, and religious and moral knowledge on Earth render theism just as probable as naturalism with respect to these observations.
[1] Robin Collins, Connections Building Theodicy (All the main ideas for this theodicy are taken from Robin Collins’ work).
[2] Thaddeus Metz, Meaning in Life, 238-239.
[3] Connection Building Theodicy
[4] Connection Building Theodicy
[5] ibid
[6] http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Culture.htm
Again, notice that my argument from a previous post about the metaphysical necessity of evolution, and the fact that natural selection probably has to be at least largely responsible for the development of biological complexity, even on theism (as shown in my post titled: Evolution is Antecedently More Probable on Naturalism), would raise the probability of theism given the observations of our limited altruistic tendencies, moral and religious knowledge, and the apparent systematic lack of any discernable moral ends on Earth to be as high as these same facts on Darwinian naturalism. The latter would be unsurprising because if God has to use evolution, then it wouldn’t be surprising if natural selection was blind to God’s morally sufficient reasons that would justify those anomalous cases in the world that do not systematically promote or reflect discernable moral ends while our social/moral interactions with human beings would still be reliable. Moreover, in my previous posts on Draper’s arguments (Evolution is Antecedently More Probable on Naturalism, Flourishing and Languishing of Sentient Life, and Pain and Pleasure) I believe I have shown that the world PREDOMINANTLY, although not systematically (because of certain facts about pain and pleasure related to moral agents), promotes or reflects discernable moral ends. I believe this is even more plausible when we consider the following theodicy; especially in relation to our innately limited altruistic, and moral and religious knowledge.
CONNECTIONS OF SIGNIFICANCE THEODICY[1]: While I believe I have shown in previous posts that there actually are discernable moral ends to the history and evolution of sentient life on Earth (Flourishing and Languishing of Sentient Life & Evolution is Antecedently More Probable On Naturalism) even if God didn’t have to use evolution, Darwinian or not, I haven’t said anything to show that even if God didn’t have to use evolution, Darwinian or not, that there are discernable moral ends in relation to these further facts about limited altruistic tendencies, and limited moral and religious knowledge in human beings. I would like to do that now.
MEANING IN LIFE: In his book, Meaning in Life, Thaddeus Metz gives the most detailed and up to date theory of what makes a concrete human life meaningful. He says,
“In this chapter, I have developed a new theory of what makes a life meaningful, roughly according to which meaning in life is a matter of positively orienting one’s and other’s rational structure towards fundamental objects, conditions of human existence that are largely responsible for many other of its conditions. I have argued that this theory plausibly captures the meaningfulness of morality, enquiry, and creativity, and that it not only avoids the major counterexamples to all other theories of life’s meaning, but also incorporates their salient kernels of truth.”[2]
Thus, it is primarily in those areas in which we are limited that both the pursuit of decreasing those limitations and the actual achievements therein will constitute a life that is meaningful, or significant.
CONNECTIONS OF APPRECIATION, CONTRIBUTION, and INTIMACY: A connection is a special sort of relation between persons resulting from the web, or matrix of actions, pursuits, accomplishments, and consequences that the pursuit of, and actual concrete living of a meaningful life bring with it. Specifically, the connections of appreciation, contribution, and intimacy formed by virtuous responses to the three kinds of limitations Draper draws our attention to carry with them a deep and largely positive degree of significance. According to Robin Collins:
“The connection of appreciation occurs when one has appreciation and gratitude for another person because of what that person has done.
The connection of contribution occurs whenever a person significantly contributes to the welfare of others.
The connection of intimacy often occurs or accompanies the connection of appreciation and contribution because it often produces a sense of intimate interconnection between contributor and recipient in that each becomes ‘a part’ of the other’s life.”[3]
Collins gives the following mathematical model too show the eternal positive value such connections can add to a human life individually as well as between the entire human race:
“Suppose our future life can be divided into small successive units of time, ^t. Now suppose that for each ^t, the conscious experience of some particular positive [achievement and] connection has an intrinsic value of ^G. Assuming that these successive intrinsic goods can be summed, the sum will continue to grow as long as the [achievement and] connection remains part of one’s ongoing experience. Even if the good of these [achievements and] connections only sums to a finite value in an infinite time, that finite value is larger than the total disvalue of any costs that the possibility of [these limitations] for a finite time brings with it in order for these [opportunities for achievements and] connections to exist. And certainly this is plausible.”[4]
Let’s now consider two good objections to this theodicy.
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES OBJECTION: Someone should object that there are other ways these types of connections could have been formed in a world without limitations on altruism, and moral and religious knowledge that would have been similar in value.
RESPONSE: A world in which humanity did not start with somewhat limited altruistic tendencies, and religious and moral knowledge would be one that lacked the corresponding types of meaning-transformative connection, even if it contained other types of connections. The connections listed form a family of irreplaceable goods. This response however encounters the opportunity cost objection.
OPPORTUNITY COST OBJECTION: These connections only come at the cost of other positive connections being formed that do not require limited altruism, and moral and religious knowledge. To respond to this objection it will be useful to add two more theses:
i.“Effort-Sacrifice Thesis: Everything else being equal, achievements, (and ongoing connections of contribution, appreciation, and intimacy) formed by growth in altruism, moral, and religious understanding that requires more sacrifice or effort have greater value (per unit time) than those that do not.
In support of the Effort-Sacrifice Thesis we can say that limited altruism, and limited religious and moral knowledge brings with it the possibility of achievements which require substantially contouring one’s intellectual, creative, and rational self in the search for fundamental truths about meaning in life (which I will argue is intrinsically valuable in and of itself and significance or meaning conferring) in a way that requires hard work, devotion, and sophisticated planning in a way that a less limited beginning in these domains would have eliminated. There is something much more valuable in creating and discovering new theories about important truths regarding ultimate objects of inquiry, and expanding the circle of moral concern through effort and sacrifice compared to being given a nature you aren’t responsible where all these things come completely naturally.
ii. Variety Thesis: a) Everything else being equal, the value of a set of positive achievements, (and connections of contribution, appreciation, and intimacy) increases with the variety of connections in the set. b) In general, the broader the type that a particular achievement and new connections adds to the mix, the more variety it adds.”[5]
In support of the Variety Thesis we can say that it is plausibly true since we “...think there is something missing in a life that merely involves a repetition of the same types of good and activities over and over again, or is merely focused on a relationship with one person.” So then, “In general, we take a variety--as long as it contributes to a sufficiently unified whole--to contribute to the richness of a person’s life, and hence be of a value.”
Lastly, I think this objection has it exactly backwards. Once we reach maturity in these three areas we can then form connections resulting from that mature state. However, if we hadn’t started out with these limitations, then we would never be able to form them.
STARTING POINTS AND PROGRESSION: Looking at the issue historically and evolutionarily, had we been started much further along in the process or worse, been given properly basic access to all the truths in these areas, then according to the effort-sacrifice and variety thesis we wouldn’t have been able to form any, or at least, much shallower connections of ACI in these areas. It is hard to know what the optimal balance between the degree of ‘darkness’ as a starting point in these areas and any greater positive connections it allows, but it seems plausible to think what CSR, and sociobiology have revealed about the starting point of human nature may very well allow for an optimal or choiceworthy number of connections of this sort that greatly increases opportunities for total significance. Two questions present themselves at this point: 1-Does human nature allow for such progress, and 2-Has it been happening?
HUMAN NATURE: Given the resources our planet has for technology, and the privileged location of Earth in time and space, and our ability to use reason, the human race as a whole has made great progress in the domains of religious and moral knowledge that shows no signs of slowing down. What about altruism? Our human nature is such that the potential for our altruistic circle of concern to expand is unlimited, “…evolution is open ended… [and] A new characteristic that is “abnormal” now might be the basis for a new nature in the future. The capacities for learning and cultural transmission in humans give this evolutionary openness and extra dimension...[so that] existence (the actual events of human life) precedes essence (any inscribed nature or “conception of man).” This fact is more probable on theism than on naturalism. A second prediction on theism, but not on naturalism, is that this circle of altruism has been expanding. Has it?
PROGRESSIVE VIEW OF HISTORY: No doubt this position assumes a progressive view of history so the question becomes, do we see such progress? In the domain of religious and moral truth, I think it is obvious that the human race has made great progress. The circle of altrusim has been expanding as well, moving from kin and kith to reciprocal altruism, to nation, and progressing towards the entire globe and who knows, maybe even all sentient life one day:
“Optimistic interpretation of historical data
Stephen Pinker argues that violence, including tribal warfare, homicide, cruel punishments, child abuse, animal cruelty, domestic violence, lynching, pogroms, and international and civil wars, has decreased over multiple scales of time and magnitude [Pinker]. Pinker considers it unlikely that human nature has changed. In his view, it is more likely that human nature comprises inclinations toward violence and those that counteract them, the "better angels of our nature". He outlines six 'major historical declines of violence' which all have their own socio/cultural/economic causes (Stephen Pinker)
1. The Pacification Process – Pinker describes this as the transition from "the anarchy of hunting, gathering, and horticultural societies … to the first agricultural civilizations with cities and governments, beginning around five thousand years ago" which brought "a reduction in the chronic raiding and feuding that characterized life in a state of nature and a more or less fivefold decrease in rates of violent death."
2. The Civilizing Process – Pinker argues that "between the late Middle Ages and the 20th century, European countries saw a tenfold-to-fiftyfold decline in their rates of homicide". Pinker attributes the idea of the Civilizing Process to the sociologist Norbert Elias, who "attributed this surprising decline to the consolidation of a patchwork of feudal territories into large kingdoms with centralized authority and an infrastructure on commerce"
3. The Humanitarian Revolution – Pinker attributes this term and concept to the historian Lynn Hunt. He says this revolution "unfolded on the [shorter] scale of centuries and took off around the time of the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries" (though he points to historical antecedents and to "parallels elsewhere in the world"). He writes: "It saw the first organized movements to abolish slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killing, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals, together with the first stirrings of systematic pacifism.
4. The Long Peace – a term he attributes to the historian John Lewis Gaddis.This fourth "major transition", Pinker says, "took place after the end of World War II"; in it, he says, "the great powers, and the developed states in general, have stopped waging war on one another"
5. The New Peace – Pinker calls this trend "more tenuous", but "since the end of the Cold War in 1989, organized conflicts of all kinds — civil wars, genocides, repression by autocratic governments, and terrorist attacks — have declined throughout the world".
6. The Rights Revolutions – The postwar period has seen, Pinker argues, "a growing revulsion against aggression on smaller scales, including violence against ethnic minorities, women, children, homosexuals, and animals. These spin-offs from the concept of human rights—civil rights, women's rights, children's rights, gay rights, and animal rights—were asserted in a cascade of movements from the late 1950s to the present day…”[6]
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Any life that has an overall balance of significance leads to connections of appreciation, contribution, and intimacy that last as ongoing, eternal realities between the entire human race (past, present, and future) whose positive value mathematically outweighs the evils of limited altruism, limited ethical and religious knowledge. Indeed, these connections are unique in that they couldn’t have been formed at all without such limitations, and our ability to progressively increase in these areas, and the types of connections formed therein, are so valuable according to the Effort/Sacrifice Thesis and Variety Thesis that they justify God in permitting the limitations to begin with.
In fact, our limitations of altruism, moral and religious knowledge are only more probable on naturalism if we think God weights making substantial moral progress within a human lifetime heavier than each individual human being, as well as the human race as a whole, living lives that are optimally significant. I would tend to think that the latter is more to be expected on theism, but even if it is merely plausible, the aforementioned facts show that all things considered, the evolution, nature, history, and potential future of altruism, and religious and moral knowledge on Earth render theism just as probable as naturalism with respect to these observations.
[1] Robin Collins, Connections Building Theodicy (All the main ideas for this theodicy are taken from Robin Collins’ work).
[2] Thaddeus Metz, Meaning in Life, 238-239.
[3] Connection Building Theodicy
[4] Connection Building Theodicy
[5] ibid
[6] http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Culture.htm
RSS Feed