<!DOCTYPE html><html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8"><title>Printable Note - Blog - Unmerited Suffering & Hominid Evolution - Response (Theo Todman's Web Page) </title><link href="../../../TheosStyle.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"><link rel="shortcut icon" href="../../../TT_ICO.png" /></head> <P ALIGN="Center"><FONT Size = 3 FACE="Arial"><B><HR>Theo Todman's Web Page<HR><p>For Text Colour-conventions (at end of page): <A HREF="#ColourConventions">Click Here</a></p><U>Blog - Unmerited Suffering & Hominid Evolution - Response</B></U></P> <P ALIGN="Justify"><FONT Size = 2 FACE="Arial"> Firstly, the <a name="8"></a><U>letter</U><SUP>1</SUP> on unmerited suffering. Obviously the arguments in the letter are not news, and I doubt we can make much further progress on this topic. My objections to the arguments are firstly that the Biblical quotations seem to read into the text a positive slant that's not there, and secondly that the Isaiah quotation really ought only to be invoked as a last resort. <BR><BR>With respect to the matter of David and Bathsheba, David s comment that  as far as his dead son is concerned   I will go to him but he will not come back to me , makes reference not to the happy hereafter, but to the grave. Is there any suggestion in the context that things will be  all right for David s son? The focus is entirely on David and his wicked ways. <BR><BR>In the passage from Luke, the focus is on perishing, not on future happiness or final restitution. I raised this passage myself, as it doesn t say who s responsible for the disasters, other than that it wasn t the victims fault; and presumably Pilate was (immediately) responsible for the slaughter his soldiers wrought. Anyway, the victims hadn t brought the Tower of Siloam down on their own heads. It s interesting to consider just when the  perishing would be. I d have thought a good dispensationalist would think that it would be in the cataclysm that would engulf Judea at the end times if there was no national repentance, much as happened at AD 66-70. <BR><BR>Isaiah 55:8-9: obviously a being with the attributes traditionally predicated of the Christian God can do lots of things  anything that s not logically impossible or contradictory to his declared character. But that s the whole issue concerning the problem of what appears to be excessive  collateral damage unmerited by the recipients. The thought that God, with his infinite bag of goodies, can  make it up to anyone caught in the cross-fire seems too facile. It reeks of using people as means rather than ends, to the dismay of the Kantians. Now, personally, I m a consequentialist (ie. a sophisticated utilitarian). So, there are some dreadful acts that have to be done in order to avoid even worse consequences. If the Kraken comes and demands one of your daughters, and won t take you instead, but would otherwise take everyone, what are you to do? Of course, in the myth some super-hero comes along and slays the Kraken, but we ll assume that way out isn t open (incidentally, this story from  Clash of the Titans seems to be a mix-up of Greek and Norse mythology  it seems that it s Ceto (and not the Kraken) that Perseus turns to stone using the Gorgon s head; but we ll let that pass). But, to continue, God is that super-hero, and (it might be said) has failed to turn up when he could have. If I allowed my daughter to be eaten alive by ants, say, when I could have done something about it, but would not  for the good of the cause , I d not be considered virtuous even if I could conjure her up again and give her an eternity of bliss. And what would she think of me? Even the Catholic clergy don t abuse children that badly. These are the ideas that have to be wrestled with. <BR><BR>I ve discussed this issue a couple of times with Pete  he quoted  God is no man s debtor . Where s this thought from? Is it scripture or a proverb? I ve done Bible and internet searches and can t find it. I even asked Julie, the walking concordance. It appears in the <I>Summa Theologica</I>, in an objection. See <A HREF = "http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1021.htm" TARGET = "_top">Link</A> (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1021.htm) (which looks like a useful site  even if a Catholic one  follow the scripture links to a triglot Bible). But there are two ways of taking this  that God owes us nothing, or that God does owe us something, and will pay up. The Calvinists take the first approach  we all deserve the everlasting bonfire because of <a name="8"></a><U>what we are</U><SUP>2</SUP>, irrespective of what we ve done. See this blog (<A HREF = "http://weareisaac.blogspot.com/2009/08/debtor-to-no-man.html" TARGET = "_top">Link</A> - Defunct). The atheist lobby would say this makes God out to be a monster. Are there really any promises that everything will be all right for everyone other than  the wicked ? Other than in Julian of Norwich, that is.<BR><BR>To take this further, I m teetering on the edge of joining (or succeeding) Pete at Heythrop. They do an MA in  Philosophy and Religion . Apart from evaluating the arguments of natural theology (which I ve never been impressed by) you have to endure a course on  20th century religious thought , which I imagine involves evaluating utter drivel. Then there are a couple of courses on ethics  probably the ones Pete took. <BR><BR>Secondly, the article ("<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_15/Abstract_15604.htm">McKie (Robin) - Out of Africa: The Sequel</A>") enclosed with the letter (follow the Abstract / Comment Link for a transcript). Naturally, I don't agree with the comments, which were "Please find enclosed an article from the weekly Guardian. Sylvia has done all the markings and we were discussing this. It shows the absolute uncertainty of the absoluteness of evolutionary science. No other scientific theory would be allowed to get away with so many caveats and still hold it head up high." <BR><BR>The reason I don't agree with the comments is that this is all  work in progress . The presumption that humans and the great apes are related, and have a common ancestor, is based on genetic and morphological studies. Evolution (taken as descent with modification, whatever its mechanisms) is taken as the unifying principle that brings together all the seemingly arbitrary facts of biology. Why do we have all this diversity and similarity, other than because God decided to do it that way? And if evolution is right as a general paradigm, then we d expect human beings to fit into it somehow. Articles like the one you enclosed are attempts to fill in the gaps. Now it seems that this is a difficult task. Until relatively recently, on geological timescales, hominids haven't been very numerous, and by all accounts, they don't fossilise well - fossilisation being rather an extraordinary process in any case. So, it's difficult to find much evidence, and piecing together what has been found is a difficult task. All this is just an artefact of where the science is at right now. Presumably (Sylvia will like that), as time goes by, more bits of the jigsaw will be discovered and it'll be possible to tell a more robust tale, and one in which the paradigm isn't as likely to be upset by the next discovery. But even now there's a story that can be told that some would say has more flesh on its bones, and more credibility, than that the first man was made out of the dust in some middle-eastern garden. The reason that "cat's are amongst the pigeons" is that there's a bunch of data that's been pieced together, and new data indicates that some of the pieces might be in the wrong place. But there are more bits to this jigsaw than are available in the Biblical account - which is so brief that it can't be regarded as a scientific account at all. Nor should it be.<BR><BR>There have been a couple of similar articles recently on the same topic  you may have seen them. One was "<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_15/Abstract_15677.htm">Krause (Johannes) - Our Ancestral Cave Gets More Crowded</A>". The other was "<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_15/Abstract_15676.htm">Burkeman (Oliver) - Revolution in Evolution</A>". Like you, no doubt, I m not too impressed by extrapolation from fingers, but the  Revolution article is interesting, if a little muddled. The suggestion that Lamarkianism  the inheritance of acquired characteristics  might have something going for it isn t to be viewed as the overthrow of evolution, but as a major adjustment to the Darwinian synthesis (natural selection plus genetics). Everyone (if they are honest) is worried by the improbabilities of genetic variation, inheritance and natural selection being the whole story if the only generator of variation is random mutation. But if somatic changes induced by behaviour could somehow get into the genome, then the improbabilities would reduce enormously. Then, we d only need to fall back on anthropic principles and multiverses to get the initial replicator off the ground. Maybe, but because something would be  nice to have (for those of us inclined in that direction) doesn t mean it should be accepted as true. <BR><BR>I look forward to hearing your thoughts on "<A HREF = "../../../BookSummaries/BookSummary_03/BookPaperAbstracts/BookPaperAbstracts_3675.htm">Walton (John H.) - The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate</A>". I'd not had time to read the last couple of chapters, but I think he was summing up by then. I liked the general approach, and in particular the author s distinction between the thought that the Biblical account is "indebted" to other ancient creation accounts (which he rejects) and the thought that such accounts formed the backdrop of common pre-scientific assumptions into which the Genesis account was directed, and against which it needs to be understood.<FONT COLOR = "000000"></P><B>Note last updated:</B> 20/04/2018 23:25:26<BR> </P><HR> <P ALIGN="Left"><FONT Size = 2 FACE="Arial"><B><U><FONT COLOR = "800080">Footnote 1: (Unmerited Suffering & Hominid Evolution) (CORRESPONDENT)</B></U></P> <P ALIGN="Justify"><FONT Size = 2 FACE="Arial"> Now you remember we were discussing suffering, and disasters. And I think we agreed that  limited' suffering did humanity good  although philosophically one could not define that limit. Then we moved on to Haiti and natural disasters. I think I mentioned something that if God did allow any to suffer unjustly (e.g. David's child by Bathsheba who died in David's place) God was more than able to make that up to people in eternity.<BR><BR>It is interesting that some in our Lord's time may have had the same problem with God permitting man's inhumanity to man and also to natural accidents. In Luke 13:1-5 we read:<BR><BR>'Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them do you think' they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."<BR><BR>The interesting thing about this is that Christ seems not interested in what happened in the here and now, on earth. He is much more interested in the hereafter. Maybe it is a case of: <BR><BR>Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. "<BR><BR>Also please find enclosed an article ("<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_15/Abstract_15604.htm">McKie (Robin) - Out of Africa: The Sequel</A>") from the weekly Guardian. Sylvia has done all the markings and we were discussing this. It shows the absolute uncertainty of the absoluteness of evolutionary science. No other scientific theory would be allowed to get away with so many caveats and still hold it head up high.<FONT COLOR = "000000"></P><B>Note last updated:</B> 29/04/2010 09:51:50<BR><BR><HR> <P ALIGN="Left"><FONT Size = 2 FACE="Arial"><B><U>Footnote 2: (What are We?)</B></U></P> <P ALIGN="Justify"><FONT Size = 2 FACE="Arial"> <u><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_734_1">Plug Note</A></U><SUB>1</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_734_1"></A></u><ul type="disc"><li>This Note cannot answer this question. Rather, it ll try to consider the sort of desiderata necessary for formulating and answering the question, and for deciding between the various candidate answers. </li><li>For the present, I just mention that I need to distinguish, as candidates for what we are, (human-)<BR>&rarr; <a name="8"></a>animals, <BR>&rarr; <a name="8"></a>organisms, <BR>&rarr; <a name="8"></a>persons, <BR>&rarr; <a name="8"></a>bodies, <BR>&rarr; <a name="8"></a>beings and <BR>&rarr; <a name="8"></a>brains. </li><li>Additionally, I need to treat of <BR>&rarr; <a name="8"></a>selves <BR>and maybe contrast terms like  <A HREF = "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensch" TARGET = "_top">Mensch</A> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensch) with  person .</li><li><B>We</B>: the use of the plural is significant. However, the determination of  we as  the sort of entity likely to be reading this paper isn t quite right, even though Dennett and others use similar expressions. Refer to the first parts of "<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_12/Abstract_12473.htm">Brandom (Robert) - Toward a Normative Pragmatics</A>" in "<A HREF = "../../../BookSummaries/BookSummary_02/BookPaperAbstracts/BookPaperAbstracts_2711.htm">Brandom (Robert) - Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing & Discursive Commitment</A>" for inspiration on  We .</li><li><B>Intelligibility</B>: this is a reciprocal relationship. We find others (of  our sort) intelligible, and it is important that they find us intelligible in return. Does this thereby make R =  finds intelligible an equivalence relation, dividing the world into equivalence classes of mutually intelligible individuals, or does R come in degrees and fall prey to <a name="8"></a>Sorites paradoxes?</li><li>For my Thesis Chapter on this topic, follow this <a name="8"></a>link.</li><li>For a page of Links to this Note, <a href="Notes_734_Links.htm">Click here</a>.</li><li>The reading lists below are somewhat bloated; but, in general, only a small portion of the works cited needs to be addressed in the context of this question. No doubt the best place to start is<BR>&rarr; "<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_12/Abstract_12470.htm">Olson (Eric) - What Are We?</A>" (the Paper), followed by<BR>&rarr; "<A HREF = "../../../BookSummaries/BookSummary_02/BookPaperAbstracts/BookPaperAbstracts_2710.htm">Olson (Eric) - What are We?</A>" (the Book). </li><li>Works on this topic that <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_734_11">I ve actually read</A></U><SUB>11</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_734_11"></A>, <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_734_12">include</A></U><SUB>12</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_734_12"></A> the following:- <ol type="i"><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_03/Abstract_3803.htm">Baillie (James) - What Am I?</A>", Baillie</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_14/Abstract_14448.htm">Baker (Lynne Rudder) - Big-Tent Metaphysics</A>", Baker</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_03/Abstract_3674.htm">Baker (Lynne Rudder) - Persons in the Material World</A>", Baker</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_05/Abstract_5137.htm">Baker (Lynne Rudder) - Precis of 'Persons & Bodies: A Constitution View'</A>", Baker</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_14/Abstract_14452.htm">Baker (Lynne Rudder) - Response to Eric Olson</A>", Baker</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_21/Abstract_21333.htm">Baker (Lynne Rudder) - Review of 'What Are We? A Study in Personal Ontology' by Eric T. Olson</A>", Baker</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_04/Abstract_4282.htm">Baker (Lynne Rudder) - What Am I?</A>", Baker</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_21/Abstract_21015.htm">Belshaw (Christopher) - Review of Paul Snowdon's 'Persons, Animals, Ourselves'</A>", Belshaw</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_23/Abstract_23284.htm">Blatti (Stephan) - Animalism (SEP)</A>", Blatti</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_23/Abstract_23281.htm">Blatti (Stephan) - We Are Animals</A>", Blatti</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_12/Abstract_12473.htm">Brandom (Robert) - Toward a Normative Pragmatics</A>", Brandom</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_21/Abstract_21758.htm">Claxton (Guy) - Intelligence in the Flesh - Limbering Up: An Introduction</A>", Claxton</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_05/Abstract_5807.htm">DeGrazia (David) - Are we essentially persons? Olson, Baker, and a reply</A>", DeGrazia</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_00/Abstract_262.htm">Johnston (Mark) - Human Beings</A>", Johnston</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_20/Abstract_20173.htm">Liao (S. Matthew) - The Organism View Defended</A>", Liao</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_05/Abstract_5910.htm">Lockwood (Michael) - When Does a Life Begin?</A>", Lockwood</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_03/Abstract_3586.htm">Nozick (Robert) - The Identity of the Self: Introduction</A>", Nozick</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_12/Abstract_12470.htm">Olson (Eric) - What Are We?</A>", Olson</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_03/Abstract_3583.htm">Parfit (Derek) - Nagel's Brain</A>", Parfit</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_15/Abstract_15140.htm">Shoemaker (David) - Personal Identity, Rational Anticipation, and Self-Concern</A>", Shoemaker</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_21/Abstract_21153.htm">Smith (Barry C.), Broks (Paul), Kennedy (A.L.) & Evans (Jules) - What Does It Mean to Be Me?</A>", Smith, etc.</li></ol></li><li>A reading list (where not covered elsewhere) might start with:- <ol type="i"><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_20/Abstract_20779.htm">Bailey (Andrew M.) - The Elimination Argument</A>", Bailey</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_20/Abstract_20778.htm">Bailey (Andrew M.) - You Needn t be Simple</A>", Bailey</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_22/Abstract_22072.htm">Baker (Lynne Rudder) - Animalism vs. Constitutionalism</A>", Baker</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_01/Abstract_1327.htm">Blackburn (Simon) - Has Kant Refuted Parfit?</A>", Blackburn</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../BookSummaries/BookSummary_06/BookPaperAbstracts/BookPaperAbstracts_6366.htm">Broks (Paul) - Into the Silent Land: Travels in Neuropsychology</A>", Broks</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_15/Abstract_15968.htm">Bynum (Terrell Ward) - Two Philosophers of the Information Age</A>", Bynum</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_13/Abstract_13016.htm">Chitty (Andrew) - First Person Plural Ontology and Praxis</A>", Chitty</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../BookSummaries/BookSummary_06/BookPaperAbstracts/BookPaperAbstracts_6335.htm">Corcoran (Kevin) - Rethinking Human Nature: A Christian Materialist Alternative to the Soul</A>", Corcoran</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_09/Abstract_9451.htm">Dennett (Daniel) - Natural Freedom</A>", Dennett</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_21/Abstract_21113.htm">Hershenov (David) - Animals, Persons and Bioethics</A>", Hershenov</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_05/Abstract_5838.htm">McMahan (Jeff) - Identity</A>", McMahan</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../BookSummaries/BookSummary_03/BookPaperAbstracts/BookPaperAbstracts_3602.htm">Noe (Alva) - Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness</A>", Noe</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../BookSummaries/BookSummary_02/BookPaperAbstracts/BookPaperAbstracts_2710.htm">Olson (Eric) - What are We?</A>", <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_734_13">Olson</A></U><SUB>13</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_734_13"></A></li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_20/Abstract_20709.htm">Parfit (Derek) - We Are Not Human Beings</A>", Parfit</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_07/Abstract_7629.htm">Richards (Janet Radcliffe) - Internicene Strife</A>", Richards</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_21/Abstract_21010.htm">Snowdon (Paul) - [P & not-A] Cases: An Introduction</A>", Snowdon</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_21/Abstract_21029.htm">Snowdon (Paul) - The Self and Personal Identity</A>", Snowdon</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_00/Abstract_550.htm">Taylor (Charles) - Responsibility For Self</A>", Taylor</li><li>"<A HREF = "../../../Abstracts/Abstract_06/Abstract_6980.htm">Wilson (Robert) - Persons, Social Agency, and Constitution</A>", Wilson</li></ol></li><li>This is mostly a <a name="8"></a>place-holder. </li></ul><BR><BR><BR><HR><BR><U><B>In-Page Footnotes</U></B><a name="On-Page_Link_734_1"></A><BR><BR><B>Footnote 1</B>: <ul type="disc"><li>A number of my philosophical Notes are  promissory notes currently only listing the books and papers (if any) I possess on the topic concerned. </li><li>I ve decided to add some text  whether by way of motivation, or something more substantive  for all these identified topics related to my Thesis.</li><li>As I want to do this fairly quickly, the text may be confused or show surprising ignorance. </li><li>The reader (if such exists) will have to bear with me, and display the principle of charity while this footnote exists. </li></ul><a name="On-Page_Link_734_11"></A><B>Footnote 11</B>: <ul type="disc"><li>Frequently I ll have made copious marginal annotations, and sometimes have written up a review-note. </li><li>In the former case, I intend to transfer the annotations into electronic form as soon as I can find the time. </li><li>In the latter case, I will have remarked on the fact against the citation, and will integrate the comments into this Note in due course. </li><li>My intention is to incorporate into these Notes comments on material I ve already read rather than engage with unread material at this stage. </li></ul><a name="On-Page_Link_734_12"></A><B>Footnote 12</B>: <ul type="disc"><li>I may have read others in between updates of this Note  in which case they will be marked as such in the  References and Reading List below.</li><li>Papers or Books partially read have a rough %age based on the time spent versus the time expected. </li></ul> <a name="On-Page_Link_734_13"></A><B>Footnote 13</B>: |..||.|There are hosts of papers by Olson that touch on this topic, but this book, and the paper of the same name, are enough in this context. </P><B>Note last updated:</B> 09/05/2018 23:47:02<BR><BR><HR> <a name="ColourConventions"></a><BR><P ALIGN="Left"><FONT Size = 2 FACE="Arial"><B><U>Text Colour Conventions</U></B><OL TYPE="1"><LI><FONT COLOR = "000000">Black</FONT>: Printable Text by me; &copy; Theo Todman, 2018<LI><FONT COLOR = "0000FF">Blue</FONT>: Text by me; &copy; Theo Todman, 2018</OL><hr><BR><a href = "../../../index.htm">Return to Home page</a><BR><B>Timestamp: 06/08/2018 09:50:30. Comments to <U>theo@theotodman.com</U>.</B></P></BODY></HTML>