I invite any of the prestigious participants (or anyone else) to explain exactly how the guinea-worm illustrates “the Creator’s love, goodness, and grace”. Preferably, those explaining this should have been infested with guinea-worm themselves, or be willing to drink water containing plenty of guinea-worm larvae.

Of course! I’ve suddenly seen the light! It is, in fact, guinea-worms, not human beings, who are made in the Creator’s image! Suddenly, it all makes sense.

Hmm. But it could be that it’s Chlamydia trachomatis that’s made in the Creator’s image. Or some member of the genus Schistosoma. Or Wuchereria bancrofti. Or of course HIV – a lot of Christians seem to believe that that one is a special blessing from the Lord. How can we know which of these or many other candidates is the true image of God? Where’s a theologian when you really need one?

AWESOME!!!

Well, I’m no prestigious participant, and have no original ideas to offer, but here’s something somewhat related that John Polkinghorne had to say (referred to on the July 14th blog entry)
“God could have no doubt snapped the divine fingers and brought into being a ready-made world, but Darwin had shown that God had done something cleverer than that, that God had brought into being a world so endowed with potentiality, with fruitfulness, that creatures could be allowed to be themselves and to make themselves. The way that evolution explores and brings to birth the richness of reality, that’s a gift to religion, to see the world as an evolving creation. And I think that’s a better world to have created than a ready-made world would have been.”
“Undoubtedly the most difficult problem facing religious belief is the problem of evil and suffering in the world. I mean we know the argument if God is good and powerful, whence then comes evil. I don’t want to suggest for a minute that there are a couple of sentences I can say which will dispose of that problem, but I think there are some insights that are mildly helpful in wrestling with it, and interestingly some of them come from science itself. I spoke about the evolving universe as being a universe in which creatures make themselves, and I suggested that that’s a greater good than a ready-made world would have been. It’s a greater good I think, but it also has an inescapable shadow side, a necessary cost. The process that’s driven the evolution of life on earth has of course been genetic mutation. But if germ cells are to mutate and produce new forms of life, it’s inevitable that somatic cells, body cells, will also be able to mutate, and sometimes when they do that they will become malignant. Now there’s no doubt at all that the presence of cancer in the world is an anguishing fact about the world. But it isn’t something that a God who was a bit more competent or a bit less callous could easily have eliminated. It’s the shadow side, the cost of the great good of a creation in which creatures make themselves. And that doesn’t dispose of all our difficulties or the anguish or the anger we feel about there being cancer in the world, but it does mean it’s not something gratuitous, and I think that’s mildly helpful in thinking about these problems.”
And in other places Polkinghorne points out that God is not a passive spectator of evil and suffering, but in Christ was a fellow sufferer.
This doesn’t totally answer your challenge, but like Polkinghorne I find these concepts “mildly helpful”.

Janet,
Do you think the trillions of creatures that have died in agony over the past few hundred million years would have found the Reverend Doctor Polkinghorne’s effusions “mildly helpful”? On what grounds is it asserted that an evolved world is better than one completely free of suffering, that an omnipotent and benevolent creator could clearly have brought into being? None whatever, except that John Polkinghorne thinks so; and in fact, John Polkinghorne only “thinks so” because he has already decided that the world was created by a good creator, and he’s desperately casting round for an excuse. It’s fundamentally dishonest as well as revoltingly callous.

On what grounds is it asserted that an evolved world is better than one completely free of suffering, that an omnipotent and benevolent creator could clearly have brought into being? None whatever, except that John Polkinghorne thinks so; and in fact, John Polkinghorne only “thinks so” because he has already decided that the world was created by a good creator,
And on what grounds do you think your dream world would be better than the world we have? Because _you_ say so? Only God knows the whole story, so only He can decide if all of this worth it, although Paul says our current sufferings (and Paul was familiar with suffering) aren’t worth mentioning compared to what will have. You have no idea what your dream world would result in although from what I know of human nature I shudder to think what kind of person your world would produce.

If we are to have any sense of freedom, does that not mean that we have freedom to do evil? If God were to create a world without suffering, how could it be a free world?

While it is true that the problem of pain and suffering, good and evil etc… are tough questions, they are by nature philosophical questions with an embedded assumption of morality. There are 100′s of books written on this topic from authors of all persuasions, including Hitchins’ “God is not Great”. If Knockgoats is really interested in hearing about how people of faith deal with this issue, he could look at the following for starters.
The Problem of Pain, CS Lewis
Man’s Search for Meaning, Victor Frankl
Disappointment with God, Philip Yancey (on the participant list)
Why does God allow Suffering, Allister McGrath
The Reason for God, Tim Keller (on the participant list)
One could also look to some great literature that addresses these themes…The Chosen, Les Miserables and The Brothers Karamazov to name a few.
It seems easy to predict however what Knockgoats reply will be given his many posts on this site. He will dismiss all of these as wishful thinking since they are not based on empirical data or do not fit into his philosophical naturalism worldview. The problem is that Knockgoats fails to acknowledge his position as having philosophical underpinnings and that his questions and conclusions are just as much at odds (probably even more) with his position than what he accuses of those who freely acknowledge they are coming from a faith position (which he is also arguing from though the faith is not in God).
If philosophical naturalism is the answer, as Knockgoats would have us believe, then by what standard does he have for judging anything as good, bad, evil, wrong, benevolent or malevolent. All of these require some standard outside of nature if they are to mean anything at all. If one really holds to philosophical naturalism, they have no right to judge acts such as rape, war, selfishness, polygamy, murder etc… as wrong or evil. These would all be natural behaviors of organisms trying to compete for opportunities to pass on their genes. In fact, they would be justified and laudable behaviors. Now I doubt Knockgoats would actually ascribe to this view and therein lies the question. Why not? This is the natural conclusion where the view he espouses takes us. Why would he not go there? Perhaps he is hoping that science will provide answers to these questions but can he really expect empirical data to answer questions of this type? My guess is that he will try to answer with scientific sounding ideas but there won’t be any data. The answers will probably be of the nature that he would call “wishful thinking” if someone else were posting them from a theistic perspective.

David,
The problem is that Knockgoats fails to acknowledge his position as having philosophical underpinnings and that his questions and conclusions are just as much at odds (probably even more) with his position than what he accuses of those who freely acknowledge they are coming from a faith position (which he is also arguing from though the faith is not in God).
Isn’t it odd how Christians extol faith as a marvellous thing, and then, when arguing with atheists, accuse them of having faith. Maybe you need to think this through a little more, David. In fact, however, my philosophical naturalism is not a faith position, but a defeasible assumption: I can specify conditions under which I would abandon it. I maintain it only as long as it continues to make sense of the world. I would abandon it if, for example, millions of Christians were suddenly to disappear (as in the “Rapture”), or if some psychic or yogi proved that (s)he could bring back to life people dead enough to start rotting, or the stars suddenly rearranged themselves into to spell out “I AM THAT I AM”, or our “junk” DNA turned out to hold the functional equivalent of “Copyright Jahweh and Son”, or… I really could go on indefinitely. Now, David, under what conditions will you conclude that your faith is misplaced?
I>If philosophical naturalism is the answer, as Knockgoats would have us believe, then by what standard does he have for judging anything as good, bad, evil, wrong, benevolent or malevolent.
Do you really think I haven’t heard this particular piece of garbage a hundred times? The basis of my moral system is humanitarianism: concern for the welfare and preferences of others. If you need a justification for caring about others, you’re a psychopath. Are you a psychopath, David?
If the point you raise were a real problem, of course, the existence of God would not resolve it. Either we need another external standard to decide whether God is in fact good, or we would have to say that anything God does is good – in which case to say that “God is good” it’s just a tautology, and if God orders you to spend your life torturing and raping children, it would be good to do so. (Of course, in fact, if there is a God he does spend his time doing this, among other things – an omnipotent being is necessarily responsible for everything.)
Now, David, how about answering my question. (No Christian has even been willing to try yet – aren’t you all worried that your Lord and Saviour will be displeased at your cowardice?) How, exactly, does the guinea worm exemplify “the Creator’s love, goodness, and grace”?

Do you really think I haven’t heard this particular piece of garbage a hundred times? The basis of my moral system is humanitarianism: concern for the welfare and preferences of others. If you need a justification for caring about others, you’re a psychopath. Are you a psychopath, David?
Knockgoats, it is nice to see that you, as I expected, do believe in something. Humaniterianism is a good thing in my judgement and is consistent, in fact an expected outcome in my faith tradition( not that all who claim that tradition practice it). Why is it a good thing for your tradition? What is the data that supports a biological advantage for the concern and welfare for the preferences of others, especially those outside your kin group?
By the way I was clear in giving you the benefit of the doubt that you in fact were not a psychopath. I am not sure that your post affords me the same courtesy. I was wrong in assuming that you would not admiit to any philosophical underpinnings. Humaniterianism is a good philosophy. How is it supported by naturalism?

Why is it a good thing for your tradition?
What tradition are you referring to?
What is the data that supports a biological advantage for the concern and welfare for the preferences of others, especially those outside your kin group?
Irrelevant. Concern for the welfare and preferences of others is almost certainly biologically advantageous in some cases and not in others. So what? I am a humanitarian because I care about other people. Really, is it possible you can’t grasp something as simple as that?
Humaniterianism is a good philosophy. How is it supported by naturalism?
It isn’t. It doesn’t need any support. It’s not even a philosophy except in the weakest possible sense. Let me repeat once more: I’m a humanitarian because I care about other people. Philosophical naturalism is simply the hypothesis that there are no supernatural entities. This is a factual question: philosophical naturalism is either true or false. However, its truth or falsity cannot tell us how we should behave, because that’s not a factual question, but a moral one. Have you ever come across the phrase “fact/value distinction”, David? Often expressed as “You can’t get an ought from an is.” The fact that people got the way they are in part through natural selection in no way implies that we ought to act so as to maximise our biological fitness (the representation of our genes in subsequent generations), any more than the fact that the force of gravity pulls us down means we ought not to fly. Surely you get it now?

“Why is it a good thing for your tradition?
What tradition are you referring to?”
It is a good thing in my Christian tradition because humans have inherent value and worth because they are created in the image of God. This is a belief that I hold and there is not any empirical data to directly support it.
You write in response to my question:
“What is the data that supports a biological advantage for the concern and welfare for the preferences of others, especially those outside your kin group?
Irrelevant. Concern for the welfare and preferences of others is almost certainly biologically advantageous in some cases and not in others. So what? I am a humanitarian because I care about other people. Really, is it possible you can’t grasp something as simple as that?”
You answered my question with the definition of what it means to be humanitarian…in essence I am a humanitarian because I am a humanitarian. And then you ask in a condescending way why I can’t grasp this? I am not asking what a humanitarian is. I am asking you to tell me what is the foundation for why you are a humanitarian. What is at the root of it? You imply it is a self evident “ought” and a question of morality. On what basis does your morality stand? Is it just a personal feeling that you have? How can you expect others to hold to your standard of morality if there is nothing underneath it to hold it up?
My tradition says that love of God and love of others is the right thing to do and I gave you the “why” to that, even if you don’t accept it for yourself. You say you care for others because it is the right thing to do…I am just asking you for your “why”.

David,
You say you care for others because it is the right thing to do
Just to avoid confusion – no, you’ll see if you read all my comments since you first commented, I didn’t say that. Rather, I have adopted the moral principle of taking the welfare and interests of others into account (if you like, I have decided to define this as a central part of what is right). If you ask for my justification for making this decision, it is, simply, that others will be better off if I do. If you ask how it came about that I made this decision, a key causal factor was the psychological fact about me that I do, in fact, feel empathy and compassion for others.
I’m being absolutely as clear as I can about this, but I strongly suspect you will still manage to misunderstand, as you have so far, because morally, you haven’t really got past the stage of thinking that doing right is doing what Daddy says – you’ve just substituted your imaginary sky Daddy for the real one.

Knockgoats, do you think it just might be that folks are getting a little tired of the demeanor you present? By my count (perhaps slightly off), there are up to now 24 comments in this thread, 16 of which are yours alone, many or most of which are written in a sneering tone of voice. No single other commenter has authored more than 2 or 3 comments, all of which are written in a generally gentler and more courteous tone than yours. Your net persona, I’m truly sorry to say, is sometimes one of a belittling and domineering loudmouth – I’m sure that’s not true of you in person, but when you project that sort of personality here, the response you get (sometimes hostile, sometimes disengaged and silent) is self-explanatory.
The guineau worm, by the way, does not exemplify God’s love, goodness and grace; but the freedom given to the creation to work itself out, in process toward the transforming renewal of all things that we in the Christian tradition hope for, does. Until that consummation, moral and natural evil are the inevitable yin to that yang, but God in Christ accompanies us through it (one of the meanings of the cross for us). I know you think this is bilge, and I’m sorry about that; now, let’s move on.

I would say that the particular truths about the guinea worm’s life cycle ‘enrich’ our understanding of God only by forcing us to reflect over the problem of natural evil seriously and deeply as theists. The problem of suffering is, in my opinion, by far the greatest challenge to benevolent theism – far more, for example, than any particular biblical hermeneutic (perhaps on that, at least, we’re agreed). It is one of the primary motivations for theological approaches as diverse as process theology and Arminianism and universalism (that is, universal restoration). Even in Calvinism it underlies a lot of the discussion between compatibilist and non-compatibilist notions of freedom.
Your insistence that God must be omnipotent in the way you suggest, such that God must be the direct creator of the guinea worm and chief director of its vector, suggests that you short-shrift all of these differing veins of thought regarding the problem of suffering, taking essentially the strongest Augustinian/Calvinist approach. Your criticisms therefore function most strongly as criticisms of that approach, with which I would agree by the way. Against other approaches, they are perhaps less effective. If evil and suffering are the logically-necessary flipside to freedom; and if freedom (at least in process toward consummation) is the logically-necessary companion of love; and if God is love, empties himself and suffers along with the creation, and promises to renew and restore all things at the end (all of these contentions being consistent with at least some Christian traditions and scriptural passages), then I think your criticisms lose some of their force.
I know you consider this wishful thinking, and so it must appear to be to atheism, which has no reason for eschatological hope whatsoever. The child who has suffered and even died from guinea worm parasitism before the doctors and engineers arrived, is simply lost and wasted. Her life serves as a tragic reminder and motivator for us to step up our efforts to prevent future occurrences, but for herself there is no hope and no comfort. And for those who are suffering with guinea worm parasitism while waiting (perhaps fruitlessly) for the doctors to arrive, atheism can offer nothing except a cold facing-up to the bleak reality. Would you, as say a fellow-villager, really tell such a child that she has no grounds to hope for anything beyond what the material world offers, and that if it cannot provide her comfort and healing in this life, there is nothing for her? This is one reason, I think, why full-chest-bared atheism has never taken hold in any large society (so far as I am aware).

Scott Jorgenson,
If evil and suffering are the logically-necessary flipside to freedom; and if freedom (at least in process toward consummation) is the logically-necessary companion of love
Neither of these has been shown to be the case, nor am I aware of any convincing arguments that they are the case. Even if they were, the question whether the creator was justified in creating given that “inevitable flip side” would arise: after all, it did not ask those (not just humans, let us remember) who would do the suffering.
In any event, it is worth reflecting that this approach means that any degree of suffering and evil in the world is held to be compatible with the existence of a benign creator, indeed (from what you said before) to be evidence of the “freedom” granted by the creator, and so evidence for that claim!
As for your hypothetical example, it is a pure argument from consequence: it has no relevance whatever to whether belief in a benevolent creator is true. I can indeed think of circumstances in which I would tell people comforting lies, although I would prefer to find practical means of alleviating their suffering; so what? Religion does flourish in conditions of hopelessness, and dwindle where most people live reasonably happy and secure lives: that is why the religious right opposes state action to help the poor.

I’d like to add a conclusion/observation from perhaps a less academic or intellectual perspective. I hope a deity exists & that we continue to exist in some state after we die. I grew up a contented Catholic , dating back to the old Tridentine Latin Mass, but am no longer involved in any religious activities.Jumping ahead abit , I have ; through the years; buried fifty-eight good friends who succumbed to the ravages of HIV/AIDS. For about half of these events ; I was present , bedside , at the moment their hearts stopped beating for all time. I am aware that there can be various explanations for my experience , but I found that being with so many people with whom I’d had a friendship for a lot of years , with all the chemistry of friends bonding ; at the moment of their deaths ; religious beliefs , doctrine , dogma & ritual ; became utterly meaningless.( Forgive the run-on sentence. I hope it makes sense to any reader.)I’d also like to inform , or remind ; people , of the actions of the religious right at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. It is very important in the greater sense , & within my space in the world ; carved in the proverbial stone ; my opinion of conservative Christians.During the early years of the epidemic , they fiercely & successfully , opposed the use of any public funds for HIV research.The subsequent delay in acquiring treatment options , denied thousands even a fighting chance at survival. After all , as many still believe , AIDS was/is the punishment of an angry deity. ( And a deity that needs a cosmic optician real bad , as he missed millions of homosexuals & took out millions of innocent women & children).Thanks for hearing me out.

Just to add a contemporary note to Bart’s moving comment, the Ugandan Parliament is currently considering a bill, which has government support, that would make gay sex punishable by a minimum of life imprisonment. “Serial offenders”, or those who are HIV+, are to be executed. People who know of homosexual activity and fail to report it to the police within 24 hours will be liable to 3 years imprisonment. The bill apparently has overwhelming public support; Uganda is around 85% Christian according to the 2002 census. Impetus from the bill came from a “seminar” held by American evangelists Scott Lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundridge. “Religion of love” – pah!

HIV/AIDS in the gay worldview and lifestyle, is totally preventable.
Put the responsibility for getting this disease where it should be.