Stephen Law was gracious to pen the foreword for my latest book, On the Problem of Good. One of the world’s most renown thinkers on religion, Law is an English philosopher and Reader in Philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London, fellow of The Royal Society of Arts and Commerce and Provost of the Centre for Inquiry UK. He also edits the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal Think, and is the author of eleven books, including The War For Children’s Minds, The Great Philosophers, Really, Really Big Questions, and Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole.
FOREWORD
BY STEPHEN LAW
Could the universe be the creation of a supremely powerful and wicked deity? Most of us will rightly dismiss that suggestion out of hand. ‘Of course not’, we’ll say ‘Look around you – at all the love, laughter, ice-cream, and rainbows! This world contains far too much good for it to be the creation of such an omnipotent and omnimalevolent deity.’ And there’s no denying that while there is suffering and misery in the world, there is also much good – good of such depth and on such a scale that it really is highly unlikely there’s some evil-God justifying reason for every last ounce of it. And the one thing we can be sure such an evil God won’t allow is gratuitous good – good for which there is no evil-God-justifying reason.
Now of course the objection we have just raised to the suggestion that we are the creation of an omnipotent and omnimalevolent deity is just the mirror image of a much more familiar objection – to belief in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity. Just as it strikes most of us obvious that there’s no Evil God given the abundance of good in the world, so it strikes many atheists as just obvious that there’s no Good God either, and on much the same basis – an abundance of evil.
So how do those who believe in a Good God respond to the problem of evil? Some construct theodicies. They appeal to free-will. They say this is a vale of soul making. They say no pain, no gain. They say much pain and suffering is caused by laws of nature required for greater goods. Or they say that just because we cannot think of a reason for all these evils, doesn’t allow us reasonably conclude there is no such reason. Such reasons could easily lie beyond our limited ability to think of them.
Now, interestingly, all these strategies can be employed by someone intent on defending belief in an Evil God. Indeed, it’s fascinating to explore Evil God apologetics and the mirror manoeuvres that can be made. It’s not just intellectually interesting. It gives you an insight into a certain mindset – a certain way of looking at things – on which everything fits, everything makes sense given – everything really can be squared with – the existence of a supremely malevolent deity. It’s a mind-set exhibiting ingenuity, imagination, and lunacy in equal measure.
We who live in the Judeo-Christian West are very familiar with the mirror version of that metaphysical mindset. Indeed, Good God theodicies, appeals to Good God’s mysterious ways, and so on, are such a familiar part of our cultural landscape – are so habitually trotted out – that we don’t even notice their bizarre, convoluted, and ultimately absurd character. Ours is a mindset that has acquired the anaesthetic of familiarity.
Our first encounter with the mirror, Evil-God version of this mindset can, for this reason, be a very powerful and disturbing experience. We’re suddenly presented with our mirror selves, our mirror culture, our mirror beliefs and mirror intellectual strategies – and the absurdity of our own metaphysical edifice becomes gloriously apparent, at least for a moment. We are afforded a brief glimpse of how things really are, and what we’re really like.
You’re frighteningly good at this, John. 😆
LikeLiked by 3 people
Law is a leader in Aggravetics 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
I thought I was the leader of Aggravetics!
LikeLike
Dear boy, we’re all fruit of the Aggravetics tree.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Not me. I’m as gentle and accepting as a lamb of all I see and hear.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LMAO. Yes, I could almost tell.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A foreword by Stephen Law indicates your book must be particularly good.
Both you and your latest book deserve praise, John Zande!
Kindest regards from Sweden (the secular country in northern Europe)
LikeLiked by 3 people
Always nice to hear from the land of the reasonable! 🙂 In fact, Sweden features in this book as I use surströmming as a working example of what I call delecious excrement.
LikeLiked by 2 people
WTF? Do you know about Swedish “surströmming”?
Then you have to be almost omniscient, maybe even a demigod. Can Odin be your father? Or Freya your mother?
You know, John Zande, that because we Swedes don’t worship any gods longer, we have become coprophages. We lack both morality and good manners: and we eat all sorts of shit. Even “surströmming” is to be found on our smorgasbords.
That’s the price we have to pay for not believing in gods. We behave like animals.
But I have to confess that I do believe in you, John Zande!
Your blog, and probably also your books, should be regarded gifts of the gods for me – and other Swedish heathens as well.
God bless you, my learned and so witful cyber friend! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL! Jettison the gods, and find surströmming!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ll be purchasing this excellent sounding book very soon. Can’t wait to read it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Look forward to hearing your thought.
LikeLike
I’ll have more than one. I’m guessing at least 3. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hehehe, thoughts 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
And best wishes from Scotland, a secularising country (if I have anything to do with it, and I’m dong my best) in Northern Europe.
Amazon.com tells me to buy it from amazon.co.uk, but Amazon.co.uk doesn’t seem to have it. Malevolence at work,in small things as in greater!
LikeLiked by 3 people
My apologies Paul, due to crazy royalty arrangements I only have the eBook through Amazon.com. If you get the print version (should be OK through amazon, or alterantively here https://www.createspace.com/6845193) I’ll email you the eBook (ePub or Mobi) which you can download to a Kindle, or any other device. Let me know, OK.
LikeLike
Still confused. On the Problem of Good: The Owner of All Infernal Names18 Feb 2017 is “currently unavailable” on Amazon.co.uk, but The Owner of All Infernal Names: An Introductory Treatise on the Existence, Nature & Government of our Omnimalevolent Creator6 Jun 2015 is available in paperback and at a proper paperback-like price (not like what World Scientific did to mine). Are these in fact the same book, give or take format and Stephen’s intro?
LikeLike
No, different books. TOOAIN is available across all markets, but this new one is only available through amazon.com. Being in the UK I’m pretty much sure you can get the print version through Createspace (the link I included in the above comment), which is actually an amazon company but runs different channels. Confusing, I know. If you like, I can then email you the eBook file (in whatever format you want per your device). If you’re having troubles, just send me an email OK.
LikeLike
Paul, I just included the UK in the distribution channels.
LikeLike
I’m looking forward to it appearing on every Theology reading list, it should be a core text.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s floating around a few philosophy departments, but no actual theology classrooms as far as a know. Not yet, at least. Shame, because I would really like to read any formal responses to the challenge presented. It’d be interesting to see if anyone can meet it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You mean you don’t find Roy/Sandra/Bobby has met it? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Has he posted as a “Sandra”? LOL! Strange, strange fellow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He/she has on Nan’s blog when she banned Roy/Bobby. Suddenly a “Sandra” popped up, female avatar and all, re-posting the exact comments Roy/Bobby tried to leave. Yeah, he/she is a pistol alright. 🙂 If you want to trigger his/her alternate swear-word filled personality, refer to him/her as Sandra in your responses. Sandra, the bi-gender, evangelical apologist.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A crossdressing online personality disorder. There’s a story in there somewhere.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Theology is pseudoscience. Therefore theologians act like ostriches when they stumble upon books like yours, John Zande.
I’m not sure, but somethings tells me that theologians fear you more than they fear the Devil.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, I like that! I like that a lot!! That’d make an awesome book spiel, or an even better review on Amazon 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s a great forward to a good book
LikeLiked by 2 people
He’s a good man.
LikeLike
Your book is next on my reading list. I’m enjoying Nan’s quite remarkable book now.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I just finsihed yours, last night. That’s an impressive tale. Am working on a review, and will send you an email soon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks John, glad you enjoyed the story! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now, who is the champion? Well done my friend. Fabulous foreward.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Law is hopelessly biased to mischievousness 😉
LikeLiked by 3 people
Two peas in a pod? 😀
LikeLiked by 2 people
Congratulations on the book, John! And on a very provocative and thought-inducing forward. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks my learned friend!
LikeLike
Who me? LMAO! -hugs-
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, John, your book is good. The Big Guy couldn’t prevent it from coming out! Enjoy it while you can!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Big Guy, Bernie Ecclestone?
LikeLiked by 2 people
When Dr Law writes:
“We’re suddenly presented with our mirror selves, our mirror culture, our mirror beliefs and mirror intellectual strategies – and the absurdity of our own metaphyscal edifice becomes gloriously apparent, at least for a moment. We are afforded a brief glimpse of how things really are, and what we’re really like.”
Law means this (look it up John Zande):
Remark number 6.54 of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
He is paraphrasing Wittgenstein…. And he is correct to a degree (like usual he does not follow the full trajectory of his thought, he can’t bring himself to question the ladders of philosophy, he is bewitched by words)…
Because really your book has nothing whatsoever to do with an Evil God… nothing whatsoever…
Really what your book does is reveal that “The Owner of All Infernal Names” is “Philosophy”.
Now, if you ended your book with Wittgenstein’s 6.54 remark… then you would have a book worth studying in a philosophy class room…
But, as I have mentioned to you previously… scientifically the model does not give you what you wish…. I would have posted you the results of my computer simulation (really quite interesting results)… but you got into bed with Law…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Philip, and thanks for your comment.
I must say, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus reads like a work of Poe’s Law, it’s fantastic, but it appears from my brief reading (which could well be hopelessly mistaken) to only have merit if both language and the world were static, were fixed and unchanging. Unfortunately for Wittgenstein, they’re not. His allusion therefore to senselessness is, to a degree, inherently senseless.
I could, however, be misreading that.
Are you aware of the work of Yāska, the Vedic grammarian and author of the Nirukta; a technical treatise on etymology, lexical categorisation, and the semantics of words? His work laid the foundation of contemporary studies in cognitive linguistics and semantics, including phonetics, grammar, syntax, lexicography and morphology. It was Yāska who first categorised nāma (nouns), ākhyāta (verbs), upasarga (prefixes), and nipāta (particles and prepositions). He created ontological categories to describe actions (bhāva) with past, present and future connotations. He formulated grammatical aspect, the murta, which identified perfective and imperfective situations. In all, it was Yāska who first looked at the entire lexicon of language and wrestled it into a system of understanding which we still use today.
An uncommon man to say the least, but his true stroke of genius came in the seemingly elementary conclusion that words, not sentences, were the fundamental carriers of meaning; that is to say, the primary element, or prakṛti, of reality. Words, Yāska saw, were the smallest indivisible unit, where clusters of words arranged in a certain way following strict grammatical systems (laws) formed a sentence whose meaning (although intended) was entirely unique to its constituent parts. It sounds intuitively simple, almost childish, but Yāska had arrived at atomism, and he did it eight generations before the Greek philosopher, Leucippus, asked one of the most important questions ever asked: If you break a piece of matter in half, and then break it in half again, how many breaks will you have to make before you can break it no further? Leucippus called his answer, the Atom. Yāska saw the same thing, but called it the word. Arrange words (like the atomists’ atom) in a certain way and one external meaning is derived. Arranged in another way the same words produced another meaning altogether. Linked to suffixes and prefixes and the meaning of the sentence would change again, and reality with it.
This, I believe, is where we see the folly in Wittgenstein treatise. Reality (this artificial world) shifts. It transforms. It evolves, and so too does language, does the “word.” To call that senseless is senseless as you can’t cage a shifting target.
You write: ”Because really your book has nothing whatsoever to do with an Evil God… nothing whatsoever…
Really what your book does is reveal that “The Owner of All Infernal Names” is “Philosophy”.”
Interesting. Firstly, you’re absolutely right, although not for the reasons you’ve attested. I do not call the Creator “evil.” If you’d read the works, you’d know that. What is described is a Creator whom, when viewed from inside Creation, appears “evil.”
Does that make more sense now?
I’m curious as to how you arrived at your second point, that TOOAIN is a philosophy. This comment seems to me to be a little fictitious as I actually go to great lengths to avoid any and all allusions to metaphysics. The first and second books are in essence historical with a teleological scorecard attached. I believe this fact alone sets the treatise apart from any philosophical, or indeed theological, work. Indeed, I am at pains to present something that does not demand an excuse (a theodicy) to be meaningful.
That is, in my opinion, the work’s strength.
Your model. I’ll have to look at it in more detail, but I do appreciate the effort. It deserves attention in relation to the first book. In that work it was proposed that TOOAIN (perhaps) suspends his omniscience so as to amplify his pleasure through the element of surprise. This originally made great sense to me, but in this new work I have discarded that proposition, realising that TOOAIN’s omniscience could only ever apply to the actual world: his world. This world, our world, is artificial. He, therefore, could never see its future.
Here is how that idea is presented in the current work:
LikeLiked by 2 people
John…
It would appear that the key point of your outline is contained in this statement:
“Such things would be unknowable, and being unknowable these artificial worlds could only ever be fashioned in such a way that they could self-experiment and freely evolve from some basal expression fixed between concepts He, the Creator, could never touch, but could impose on an artificial scape: a beginning, a middle, and an end.”
Which simply appears to be saying:
“We exist in a holographic universe”
You see, you have a big problem…. the first is that if you are the attacking Judeo-Christian view… then you have to accept that all we perceive of the universe is post-fall….not at its creation, i.e. t=0….. scientifically one would equate post-fall with Planck time…. anything below this time is unknowable.
LikeLike
No, not holographic at all. And I’m not litigating the claims of any religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“This originally made great sense to me, but in this new work I have discarded that proposition, realising that TOOAIN’s omniscience could only ever apply to the actual world: his world. This world, our world, is artificial. He, therefore, could never see its future.”
This is an interesting argument, John. It responds to, I believe, orthodox Christianity in its more intellectualized forms. Orthodoxy ultimately must deny the reality of free will, as God Knows All. Your mind game provides a unique “solution” to this problem!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Any theodicy based on free will is a fundamentally flawed argument. Omniscience gets any god hypothesis into enormous trouble. If, though, we recognise Creation as an artificial scape (what I call a type of laboratory, or petri dish) entirely independent of the actual world (that known to the creator, but inaccessible to all contingent things) then there’s no great problem between that being’s existence, maximum power, this world, and logic.
LikeLike
A blind man writes a book about what he sees.
Another blind man approves.
Their intention is to make people who can see think they are blind.
Would “The Book of Stupid” be an appropriate title?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sure, if you’re talking about your Hebrew cosmogony 😉
LikeLike
Hebrew cosmogony?… interesting John… very interesting indeed….
Did you know that Nachmanides (a famous Torah scholar in the 13th century) researching the Torah came to the conclusion that the cosmos consisted of 10 dimensions…. 4 knowable, i.e. 3D length extension and time… the other 6 were unknowable… the LHC at CERN has come to a similar conclusion…
Kinda related… have a read of this paper… I would be interested in your view:
http://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.ss/1177010393
By the way… I think your TOOAIN idea is superior… sounds like your new work is too much like the Omega Point mixed with Socinianism…
LikeLike
Well, yes, I’m sure that by using this decipher-ring I can find the recipe for Seafood Tagine in Moby Dick 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
Judeo-Christianity brought about Western Civilization.
No other civilization progressed past the camp fire, the slave and the beast of burden.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m starting to think you enjoy making historians cry, SOM.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Another book John? I’m running out of time to read it all. Congratulations good sir.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Sir.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More congratulations John! Law’s Forward is spot on about the odysseys (oddities?) of their theodicies! 😉
Isn’t it a very “good” thing that most of the world are NOT followers of the Abrahamic religions!? LOL I mean, how can the majority of the secular world — and those who believe in different dieties — ALL be wrong about the god of Abraham!? Hah! The answer is clear, eh?
Again Sir, applause and congratulations on your work!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Professor, its appreciated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great foreword. It’s a valid statement though, that we are only limited by our capacity to reason and think beyond our current delimiters, of which, when it really comes to it, are few. The stretch of the imagination is grandiose, but not without merit if explored with any kind of creativity and desire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
and verve, don’t forget the verve! 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha! 🙂 Verve is always good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jz, are you catching the conversation cs and I are having on my “challenge” post?
LikeLike
Which post? Got a link?
LikeLike
https://recoveringknowitall.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/a-challenge-to-would-be-apologists-if-christ-be-not-risen/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I recycled it yest
LikeLike
Ah, coming from the from the Branyon circus. Yes, I just ignored Amanda’s request, and that other comment. Had my dose of “stupid” this weekend, didn’t feel like seconds.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: What Would Convince You? – Waiving Entropy
‘ Dont get sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole ‘ yes I like it and there are plenty of those type of black beauties around. I’m fairly safe with an IQ of about 105 the downside is I read a lot which has its dangers. My advice would be spread your interests too much physics will doom you to a black hole death; try a little poetry or a few good long novels , or , dare I say it a bit of political maneuvering. Above all don’t take yourself or anyone else too seriously remembering a little kindly indulgence goes a long way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: A rational argument for atheism. – Learning from Dogs
I just found out about this book via an obscure ‘here’ link in a fascinating recent post on Paul Handover’s ‘Learning from Dogs’.
I note that your <spit> amazon link is to the .com site, which is only good for USAns. As a yuletide gift, I offer a ‘genius link’ I’ve just made at booklinker.net that automagitally redirects the user to the appropriate site in their neck of the woods:
http://mybook.to/OnTheProblemOfGood
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cool, thanks! That’s actually the second book. Up top, on the right, there are links. Amazon channels are terrible, so I just concentrated the books into three ‘markets.’
Bear in mind, these are works of Poe’s Law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s too early in the day: I can’t decide whether your second paragraph is also an example of that law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hehehehe… Exactly!
LikeLiked by 1 person