[00:00:04] Speaker A: ID the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
[00:00:12] Speaker B: How does the design of nature facilitate morality, and do humans have freedom of choice, or is it merely an illusion? Welcome to ID the future. I'm your host, Andrew McDermott. Today I'm concluding a conversation with Dr. Eric Hadeen, professor emeritus of physics and astronomy at Ball State University in Indiana. In 2013, his Boundaries of Science course at Ball State University came under attack by a national atheist organization for allowing student discussions in class to consider evidence that nature might not be all there is and that our lives might have eternal meaning and value within a universe specifically fitted for beings like us. Dr. Hadeen is author of the recent book Canceled Science what Some Atheists Don't Want You to See. He speaks regularly at universities around the country and writes on the evidence for intelligent
[email protected]. Dr. Hadeen, welcome back to the show.
[00:01:09] Speaker C: Thank you, Andrew. It's good to be with you again.
[00:01:12] Speaker B: You've written two
[email protected] recently that have some interesting insights, and they're also quite timely with regard to events happening in the world right now. The problem of evil is an evergreen topic, of course, as there are plenty of examples throughout recorded history of the evil humans have done to each other. At this moment in history, though, we are dealing with the effects of the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, the worst attack of the people of Israel since the Holocaust. Now, your first article is titled Thoughts of Evil in a Designed World. And in a previous episode, we discussed the two causes of suffering and what that suffering might mean in a designed world versus a world that may occur through random natural processes. In this episode, we'll discuss your argument that nature reflects not only intelligent design, but also moral design. Now, you start your article on nature reflecting moral design with these words human beings must have freedom of choice if our actions are to have any meaning beyond the impersonal and predictable outcomes governed by the laws of physics.
What does it look like when human beings don't have freedom of choice? Can you give us a picture of that?
[00:02:24] Speaker C: Well, I think that there are times when humans might find themselves in situations where their freedoms are limited, and I would say that nobody enjoys that experience being controlled by another or in some way having your freedoms restricted. There's those who are incarcerated, whether for a crime or perhaps as a result of some sort of a war or conflict. But that's not a situation that any human being wants to be in. So, as far as humans must have freedom of choice if our actions are to have any meaning, I think that again, if we would say that all we are is a collection of molecules that are interacting by the forces of nature, then according to that worldview, if that's it, then our choices, if you would even call them that, are completely meaningless.
It would be no more meaningful than the robotic motions of a manufacturing robot in an automobile factory. So I don't think that most people want to assume that their actions are completely predetermined.
As we discussed in the last episode, there are those who are trying to perhaps call for that type of determinism, but I think that it flies in the face of our common experience.
[00:04:08] Speaker B: Right? Well, real love can't come from a place of fear or coercion, as you mentioned in your pieces. You quote physicist George Ellis and philosopher Nancy Murphy from their book on the moral nature of the universe, theology, Cosmology, and Ethics. And they say that the ultimate purpose of the universe is to allow for this uncoerced response to the Creator. How does our freedom of choice relate to morality and the moral design of nature? How do those two combine or relate?
[00:04:41] Speaker C: Well, again, if we think of the context in which we live our lives, we exist on a planet that's within a cosmos, and the same laws of physics that govern the intergalactic space also affect us in our local environment here. And if we say, well, how does the nature of nature how does that have anything to do with our ability to have freedom of choice? Well, if we think about it, the laws of physics mean that our actions have a predictable outcome. Let's say that because we know how the law of gravity works from experience from basically our infancy on upward in age, we know that if we do certain things, certain outcomes will follow. So there's a predictability to the laws of nature that allows us to, in a way, be morally responsible for our actions. And if you think about this from the point of view of the theistic worldview, from the point of view of a Creator, if the Creator is giving us moral responsibility, then the universe that he places us into has to be designed so that our actions can reflect our moral choices. And that means that the laws of physics, as understood by us and experienced by us even more, have to result in our ability to predict our outcomes. If, for example, the laws of physics were not constant and what happened yesterday is not the way it's going to work today, we might be able to say, well, I have no idea that if I pulled the trigger on this gun, it was actually going to fire a bullet, because yesterday when I did that, nothing happened. If the laws of physics had changed but the laws of physics are constant. They're predictable. That means that we can be morally responsible for physical actions that we do within this universe.
[00:06:59] Speaker B: Yeah, and you do make the point about the laws of physics, the laws of nature being impartial, and I thought that was good. We see the laws of physics operating the same day in and day out. They never change. And what does this say? This does say things about life and the universe, and it also teaches us from an early age that we can depend on certain things being the same and not changing. And that does give us guardrails for our own conscious decisions.
[00:07:32] Speaker C: Yes. And the fact that the laws of physics are impartial, I think, again, if you kind of place this within the theistic worldview, that means that each person can well, there's kind of two sides to it. For example, the rain will fall on the ground and the sun will come up, whether or not the people there are choosing to do evil or choosing to do good. And so there's kind of an impartiality there. The forces of nature can be harnessed. The same forces can be harnessed to produce helpful machinery, or they can be harnessed to produce weapons of mass destruction. And again, there's sort of an impartial palette or storehouse of available tools that we can put to use. And basically, it's a stage in which our choices, our decisions can be manifested. And so our actions are made known within this universe, whether we choose to be loving and help people care for others or whether we choose to do harm.
[00:08:53] Speaker B: Yeah, I like the way you put that. A stage wherein we can manifest our choices. Well, one common atheistic argument against God's existence is that if God wanted people to believe in him, he wouldn't have taken such pains to hide himself. I believe Richard Dawkins spoke those words when he was interviewed for the movie Expelled with Ben Stein. But there are many atheists who do think this way. Now, how do you respond to that claim, the claim that God hides himself and can't be known?
[00:09:26] Speaker C: Well, I think that the same atheists who, in a way, might complain to God like, why are you taking so much pains to hide yourself? Would also complain if God in a way, was too dominating so that there was really no choice but to serve Him.
What we see in this universe is that, again, as we've just been talking about, the way nature works doesn't force us to make certain choices, but there's a great flexibility in what we can do with the resources, the palette of nature. Now, again, if we say, okay, that's a result of God keeping in the background, then it allows us to show ourselves without coercion.
The physicists George Ellis and Nancy Murphy use the term the non coercivity of the universe. That this universe is designed to not coerce people to behave a certain way or to make certain choices. We have actually, within this universe, a great latitude of freedom. Now, there is some limit.
The universe is designed the physical way things are is designed to provide some boundaries to our actions. We are finite by design, and our actions, therefore, will probably have finite significance. None of us is going to be able to make a decision that will destroy the Andromeda galaxy, at least at this point in our technological development and in the foreseeable future, that's just not going to happen. And so there are limitations and I, in a way, thank God for that. But we do have a great latitude and God's hiddenness is part of that. It's not complete hiddenness. I made the point in the article that there are sufficient signatures of God's existence and his character that exist that if we are open to them, I think that it's quite plain that God exists. But it's not so in your face that you can't still decide, no, I don't think God does exist. And some people do come to that conclusion and maybe that affects their worldview.
[00:12:04] Speaker B: Very interesting. Yeah. You can sense that gentleness that's there.
And you would expect that from one who designed the universe for beings like ourselves. A gentleness and a respect for human agency and human autonomy.
[00:12:21] Speaker C: Yeah, I like the way you put that. Gentleness and respect for human agency and autonomy. Yeah. And for me that's consistent with what I understand about the nature of God himself.
[00:12:36] Speaker B: Now, what about justice? Does the design of the universe teach us about justice? Fairness? Is the universe designed to allow ultimate fair judgment of every person, as you mentioned in your article.
[00:12:49] Speaker C: Well, I think you can look at it from this perspective that I believe that, again, Murphy and Ellis have no, it's actually a different source that I quoted for this statement that to the extent that any person is morally responsible for what they do, they must be free to do it. And if we live in a universe that is governed by a just God who is going to, according to the biblical worldview, eventually judge us for our actions, if that's the case, then within this universe we must be free. That means not determined, but free to choose to do those actions or to not do them. And again, I believe that the non coercivity of the universe provides this stage or platform for us to make free choices. We're not forced to do an evil thing and neither are we forced to do a good thing. Our own inner choices, our mind, perhaps our rational thinking processes can even if there are influences one way or the other, we can override those influences and decide to either do good or evil. And so basically the universe reveals who we are by allowing us to make free choices. And then if you think of, again, the biblical worldview and God judging us, he's not judging us based on what we couldn't do or what we were suffering deprivation that forced us to do something or what we were controlled to do. But he's judging, you would say, in a just way based on our ability to make free choices as allowed by the laws of nature the way they are.
[00:15:01] Speaker B: Well, to put it in a sports analogy, through a variety of factors, we find a ball in front of us. The ball is in our court. The question is, what are we going to do with it? That might be one way to kind of sum up the freedom that we have within the universe.
[00:15:19] Speaker C: Yeah, the balls in our court, maybe we think, oh, that's just terrifying.
How will I know what's the right thing to do? Well, I think again, I don't want to paint a pessimistic picture that leaves anyone feeling that way. In my understanding of things, god is not only just, but compassionate and kind and understanding and merciful. So we don't have to be walking around on pins and needles just worried about messing up or making the wrong choice. So for that, I'm thankful. The fact that we do have freedom, it leads to joy, really, if you think about it, we have freedom to express ourselves in many ways. We can build a house, we can paint a picture, we can write a book, we can play a ball game. There's choices about what we want to do for our living, what kind of a job or career we would like, who we want to have a relationship with, and where we'd like to travel, what we'd like to see. And so it's not all about just kind of academic questions of choice. I believe that the universe is set up to allow us a great deal of joy that comes with freedom.
I'm really eternally thankful that that's the way things are.
[00:16:46] Speaker B: Well, Evolutionnews.org editor David Klinghoffer also shared some commentary recently on goodness in an evolutionary world. Sort of accompanying your recent thoughts. He noted that in an evolutionary perspective, what you'd expect is humans more or less on the level of animals, not greatly exceeding them in evil or greatly transcending them in good. But that's not what we find. Why is that important to the choices we make every day?
[00:17:13] Speaker C: Well, again, I think that we talked a little bit earlier about how human evil can exceed categorically, any sort of selfishness or evil, if you want to call it that, we see in the animal world. But I think also our ability to do good can exceed that. Going into an impoverished region where people lack resources and donating money to build a hospital and caring for people with various diseases. Or I know of one organization that actually raises money to transport children and their parents or caretakers from poorer regions of the world if these children need heart surgeries to correct congenital heart defects. And all of this is paid for and there's no cost to the individual. And they're given a renewed life, a life without limitations of heart defects and then able to go back to their own countries made well by the technology that allows us to do those sorts of surgeries.
That's just one example of a greater good. It's not just caring for our young, which animals do that, or kind of herd behavior like we'll all stick together and protect ourselves from the wolves. But there's an altruism that is manifest in human societies that, in a way, have a foundation of ethics, that values showing compassion, helping others. So I think there is, again, a categorical difference.
[00:19:01] Speaker B: Well, we do need to wrap it up for this episode. But on that note, thank you, Dr. Hadeen, for taking the time to unpack your recent articles on this topic. You're very welcome, very insightful stuff. I appreciate your time.
[00:19:14] Speaker C: It's been a pleasure talking with you. And I know that these topics are deep and there's so much more to consider. This is not at all an exhaustive description of the problem of evil, but hopefully can offer some help and some encouragement here. Maybe we can continue the discussion at another time.
[00:19:35] Speaker B: Absolutely. Well, if you missed part one of this discussion, be sure to go back and listen to it. We'll include links to these articles in the episode,
[email protected]. And for more from Dr. Hadeen, get a copy of his book, canceled Science What Some Atheists Don't Want You to See. For ID the future. I'm Andrew McDermott. Thanks for listening.
[00:19:59] Speaker A: Visit
[email protected] and intelligentdesign.org. This program is copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its center for Science and Culture.
