This video is interesting and entertaining to say the least.  The producers certainly take a position but it is tough not to take a position on this issue; that American education is based on the Prussian model is undisputed.

“It is nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of intruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry.” – Albert Einstein

“Drop out of school before your mind rots from exposure to our mundane educational system… go to the library and educate yourself if you’ve got any guts.” – Frank Zappa

Via here

bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/

It really disturbs me when terms are abused and this happens often.  It is especially disturbing when those who are adversarial to the term in question use it to mean something it does not.  This means they are either ignorant or dishonest.  So this is a public service announcement for the benefit of all the adversaries of Intelligent Design out there.

Intelligent Design is not a rival to Evolution.  When you pit the two against one another, you sound stupid.  You are making either a claim from ignorance or are being dishonest.  Both discredit you and your argument.  Furthermore, intellectual dishonesty runs completely contrary to the ideals of scientific inquiry which you attack Intelligent Design for violating.  Therefore you are a hypocrit.

Young Earth Creationism is a rival to Evolution, Intelligent Design is not.  Most Intelligent Design proponents reject Evolution, but the theory itself does not.

Evolution (personified) should take no issue with Intelligent Design.  Intelligent Design (though not a direct rival) is a rejection of Modernism, with its rejection of all things super-natural.  It is not a rejection of Evolution which makes no claim with regards to the super-natural.  Lets get this right, Please!

“Never mention politics or religion, in polite conversation.”  It’s a common phrase and you heard it many times.  It is also one of the most destructive ideas of Western civilization.  Think about it for a minute, is there anything more important to discuss than politics and religion?  Religion, is what you believe, is, and politics, is what you believe should be.  Religion in this sense could also be a worldview, it could be a particular theory of metaphysics, or it could be one of the more traditional religions.  In any case, it deals with man’s relationship to God or lack there of and questions of ultimate truth and reality.  Politics deals with man’s relationships with each other.  I can think of nothing that could be more important to discuss, especially in polite conversation. 

The purpose of this proverb, (I’ll be referring to it as the pseudo-polite rule, and you’ll see why in a second) is to maintain a polite atmosphere.  The fear is that, if it’s discovered that two people in a conversation disagree with one another, then the conversation will quickly turn to bickering.  I contend that if the conversation would turn to bickering simply because there’s a disagreement, than it is not a polite conversation to begin with, only pseudo-polite.  The parties to a conversation like that never had any real respect for each other in the first place, they just didn’t have the opportunity to display their disrespect.  It is extremely foolish and immature to take the position that one can only be polite with those one agrees with.  Now, it is true that there are many foolish and immature people out there who can only be polite with those they agree with but these people are bigots, and creating a pseudo-polite environment, only enables them to continue in their bigotry.

Arguments are after all, cooperative, not competitive ventures.  The purpose of an argument is always to come to agreement.  Usually when arguing, you are seeking to convert your opponent to your point of view.  Sometimes you’re seeking compromise, but either way you’re seeking agreement.  Also, when venturing into an argument, you accept the risk that you could be the one converted.  In this way an argument is a cooperative venture.  Those who seek to “win an argument” were never in an argument in the first place, they were in a bickering match.

I don’t know when the pseudo-polite rule was invented, but I do know that through most of history, in most cultures, it was not the norm.  Perhaps it is because rhetoric is no longer taught in most schools and so people have a distorted view of argumentation and can no longer distinguish it from bickering, or perhaps it is this distorted view that led to rhetoric no longer being taught in school.  Whatever the cause, one need only look at the debates between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to see that arguing was not always equated with bickering and enmity.  These two men had extremely divergent views in both politics and religion, yet they had tremendous respect for one another and tremendous friendship. 

When the United States was in its infancy.  There was no Australian ballot.  The Australian ballot is how essentially all voting takes place in the Western world today.  It has become so common that there’s no longer any need to refer to it as the Australian ballot.  It’s simply the way voting is done.  You go into a booth and close the curtain fill out the ballot and place it in a box.  In this way, no one knows, if you voted Republican, Democrat, Whig, Socialist, or Libertarian.  We have become so concerned with the pseudo-polite rule that casting a ballot behind a shower curtain, has become a sacred right in most people’s minds.  When the US was in its infancy, ballots were cast by walking up to a table and picking up a red piece of paper or a blue piece of paper and placing it in the ballot box.  When voting, you may have turned and held up your ballot for everyone to see, you may even have had to do this on stage.  All your friends, family, and neighbors knew who you voted for and you better believe it got discussed.  This discussion is something that we have lost and I hope and pray that we can get it back.

I mentioned before that the pseudo-polite rule is one of the most destructive ideas of Western civilization, the reason for that is this.  The pseudo-polite role attempts to limit or shut down completely, argument and debate (among friends and family, at least).  Progress comes through dissent.  You can have no progress, if you have no disagreement.  If you only agree and you only speak about things you agree on then the status quo is the best you can hope for.  Progress only comes when someone says, “I think there is a better way to do this.”  That, is a disagreement. 

Furthermore, what is the point of conversation at all, if you’re only going to discuss things you agree on?  If you meet a friend for lunch and you both adhere to the pseudo-polite role, then you might as well just sit and smile at each other, because you’re not going to get anything done with conversation!  Conversation among friends like that (and they can’t really be friends if you can’t disagree) is nothing more than a mutual patting each other on the back fest!  A nation or a culture with out argument and debate is like a crab, it can only move sideways or backwards.  The nations with the most vibrant debating culture are sure to be the ones making the quickest and most rapid progress.  Get out of Pleasant Valley and stop being afraid of running into someone you might disagree with!

I read the New York Times every day, and on the whole I find it to be a pretty good source of news.  Though the New York Times leans liberal as with most news agencies in the US, I do not buy into the right wing conspiracy theories that the New York Times exists as a propaganda wing of the DNC or anything like that.  However today there was an editorial that was so false and offensive, that I was compelled to respond.  The first thing that is offensive about it is that it was printed as an editorial, this means no one had to attach their name to it.  If you’re going to express your opinion, especially one so controversial, be vertebrate enough to attach your name to it. I have reprinted the article below in its entirety, it is of course copyright, the New York Times, 2008, and you can go to the original article by clicking on the title.  My responses are in italics.

June 7, 2008

Editorial

The Cons of Creationism

When it comes to science, creationists tend to struggle with reality. They believe, after all, that evolution by means of natural selection is false and that Earth is only a few thousand years old. They also believe that students who are taught a creationist view of biology — or who are taught to disregard the Darwinist view — are not being disadvantaged.

This first paragraph serves no purpose except to set up the enemies of the New York Times editorial board in a bad light by associating them with the name, creationist.  The New York Times has stooped the same level as drunk kids, who call the police, the Gestapo.  They are trying to generate negative sympathy by calling names.

The Texas State Board of Education is again considering a science curriculum that teaches the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, setting an example that several other states are likely to follow. This is code for teaching creationism.

Not only is this a lie, but it’s not a very good lie.  Any human who is not in a vegetative state, should be able to distinguish between teaching the strengths and weaknesses of one theory from teaching a totally different theory.  The New York Times has effectively said that, “teaching the advantages and disadvantages of freestyle swimming is the same thing as teaching the backstroke.” 

Any theory that is to be taught should be taught in its strengths and its weaknesses, to do otherwise would be to teach dogma, not science.  Education should be about teaching children how to think.  The New York Times seems to believe education is about teaching children to regurgitate facts given them by their betters.  In the pursuit of truth, all facts should be allowed to come to light.  If the New York Times is so confident in the theory of evolution than they certainly have nothing to fear from teaching its weaknesses.

It has the advantage of sounding more balanced than teaching “intelligent design,” which the courts have consistently banned from science classrooms. It has the disadvantage of being nonsense.

Because there cannot possibly be weakness in dogma.

The chairman of the Texas board, a dentist named Don McLeroy, advocates the “strengths and weaknesses” approach, as does a near majority of the board. The system accommodates what Dr. McLeroy calls two systems of science, creationist and “naturalist.”

The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith. All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator. Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin. If the creationist view prevails in Texas, students interested in learning how science really works and what scientists really understand about life will first have to overcome the handicap of their own education.

With this first statement, I completely agree.  The Genesis story is a story that must be taken on faith.  However, the New York Times is once again resorted to equating Darwinism’s weaknesses with creationism.  There is no reason whatsoever to reference any divine creator, when speaking of the weaknesses of a scientific theory. 

If evolution has evolved since the time of Darwin, then it must necessarily have had weaknesses.  If it had no weakness then it could not have evolved. 

Students will certainly be handicapped by not having the approved dogma drilled into their skulls.  After all, they are only deltas.  They are not capable of examining evidence without  the guidance of someone superior to themselves.  Instead, they will have a scientific theory that as the New York Times rightly points out is evolving, taught to them in its strengths and weaknesses.  Who knows what this could do to a Delta’s mind?  It is obviously in their own best interest of a shield them from this.

Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence. The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved. The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms.

Ahhh, I get it now.  Evolution is exempt from examination.

If the weaknesses are antiquated and long since solved, then teach that.  It is not too difficult to do, “this is a purported weakness, and this is how it has been purported to be solved.”

This last sentence is the most offensive of the entire article.  The condescension and patronization is blatant and disgusting.  They believe that people of faith are too stupid to see that this is mockery in the clothing of a concession.  The New York Times has spent several paragraphs, demonstrating that they believe creationism to be a fantasy.  Then they have the gall to elaborate on where it should be taught!  No I’m sorry, it is never appropriate to teach fantasies as realities.

The origins debate rarely rises above the level of a playground brawl on either side, and that is a shame.  However, the New York Times has brought it to a new low.  In the past people such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris have argued that religious faith was nothing more than fantasy, but they had the decency to state the obvious, that fantasy should not be taught anywhere.  They also had the decency to write their names on the front of their books.
                                                                                                                                     J. W. Kraft

ABC’s hit sci-fi mystery series LOST, has many characters who are named after famous philosophers and intellectuals of the past. There has been a lot of speculation about the meaning of the characters names and their relationships to their namesakes. I admit that I have done a good deal of speculation on this topic myself. This has also led to a great deal of interest in philosophies and philosophers who most people have never heard of. Always one to cash in on an opportunity to educate and talk philosophy, this has inspired me to write a series of articles on the philosophers of lost.

Because Jeremy Bentham is the newest philosopher to make an appearance on the show, I’ve decided to start with him. After Bentham, I plan to do. John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, CS Lewis, Michael Faraday, David Hume, and Edmund Burke. There have been a few other noted intellectuals whose names have made appearances in LOST but these are the primary ones. If your favorite lost illuminati did not make the list, leave me a comment and subscribe to the feed. I will try to include an article about them also.

In the last episode of LOST this season, we learn that the character, Locke (named for another philosopher whom I will be featuring next) has been going by the name of Jeremy Bentham. We also learn that he is dead, but that’s of little importance to this exercise. So who is, or rather was this Jeremy Bentham? Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher born in 1748, he died in 1832. Bentham was one of the true geniuses of history, he studied Latin at age 8 (according to some it was age 3). He entered college at a very early age, eventually becoming a lawyer, though he practiced law little if any at all during his life. Bentham was a wide thinker and was influential in many fields.

Bentham was well-known in his own day and had the ear of many world leaders. He proposed constitutions for countries across the globe. None of his constitutions were accepted, to my knowledge at least. He also levied unsuccessfully to have the colonial powers give up their colonies. In short, he was a major thorn in the side of Kings everywhere.

He was one of the first people to champion animal rights. Bentham argued that people had a moral responsibility to animals because animals have the ability to suffer. This is in contrast to many people, who argue that there is no moral responsibility to animals because they lack the ability to reason.

Bentham is credited as being the first person in the English world to argue that homosexuality should not be a criminal offense. He believed, and argued strongly that homosexual acts are immoral and detrimental to those who practice them. However, he did not believe that the government should be prosecuting homosexuals. In Bentham’s time, homosexuals were often executed so, his views were considered extremely radical. They were so radical, in fact, that they were not published until after his death.

Bentham was also one of the first to argue that education should be open to people of all classes, races, and religious persuasion. At this time, you had to be a member of the Church of England to be excepted to Oxford or Cambridge. Also, tuition was so high that only the upper class could afford to go. Bentham’s views on education, indirectly led to the founding of University College London.

All this is impressive enough, but what the history books remember Bentham for is his work in ethics. Bentham espoused an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. Utilitarianism belongs to a family of ethical theories known as consequentialist. This is because under utilitarianism, what makes an action morally right or wrong are the consequences of that action. Utilitarianism is also a form of hedonism, because the consequences of an action are judged by how much happiness they produce. Jeremy Bentham did not come up with a theory of utilitarianism, consequentialism, or hedonism; all of these go back to ancient Greek times. What Bentham did was move utilitarianism into the mainstream.

There are many forms of utilitarianism but, what they all share is the idea that an action is to be judged morally right if it produces more pleasure than pain (Bentham added, for more people). If it produces more pain than pleasure overall, than it is morally wrong. There are several problems with this, but one of the largest is how to measure pleasure and pain. Bentham believed they could in fact be measured.

Some people argue that pleasures can vary in their quality. For example, many people would say that the pleasure of going to a ballet is a higher-quality than the pleasure of smoking a cigarette, even if they can be said to be of the same quantity. Bentham rejected this. For him, the quality of a pleasure was of no consequence and probably did not exist at all. However, the quantity of pleasure and pain was of the utmost importance. Bentham invented the Hedonistic Calculus a.k.a. the Calculus of Felicity. using the Calculus of Felicity, Bentham rated the pleasure and pain of actions on a seven point sliding scale. He rated pleasure and pain on intensity, duration, certainty, proximity, fecundity, purity, and extent. I’ll save you the details of what all that means. Suffice it to say that, Bentham believed that his calculus of Felicity would eventually become second nature to most people. He expected people to be able to intuitively calculate the exact amount of pleasure and pain that their actions would produce.

One major criticism of utilitarianism as Bentham proposed it, is that in theory, an individual or a small minority could be subjected to persecution of some sort and if this would in some way bring more pleasure to the masses, it would be deemed morally good. Ursula K. Le Guin drove this point home in her short story, “Those Who Walked Away from Omelas.” Omelas is a utopian city, but it has a dark side. The utopian bliss is maintained at the expense of a child who has to be tortured in a dark cell. No explanation is given as to how this works, that’s not the point.

It is probably not fair to say that Bentham would have supported such a system, he is known to have supported the rule of law, and one can assume that he expected laws to prevent things that society as a whole took offense to, such as rape and torture. However, it is interesting to note that this is very similar to the way LOST’s Jeremy Bentham (a.k.a. John Locke) arranged for his father to be killed for the good of the Others. We also know that for some reason he dies, is it possible that he kills himself or allows himself to be killed for some utilitarian good?

Perhaps Bentham’s greatest influence came through the work of his pupil, John Stuart Mill. JS Mill was another super genius English philosopher and utilitarian. Though, Mill’s utilitarianism would go in a very different direction than Bentham’s. He was the son of Bentham’s good friend James Mill, and early in his life Bentham and Senior Mill recognized his potential and began an intensive education. John Stuart Mill was studying Greek at age 3!

On a final note, before he died, Jeremy Bentham arranged for the construction of what he called his auto icon. The auto icon is a wooden cabinet with a glass front. Bentham arranged for his body to be embalmed and placed in the auto icon, upright sitting in a chair. Today, Jeremy Bentham, in his auto icon sits on the board of University College London, and can be seen by visitors. How
‘s that for weird?

Stay tuned, John Locke is next.

A debate has raged for centuries in the halls of seminaries and theology departments around the world.  This debate centers on what language the New Testament was written in.  It is generally well accepted that the language of the Old Testament was Hebrew, most scholars accept this.  However, it’s generally thought that the New Testament was written originally in Koine Greek and the primary language spoken by Jesus and most of the apostles and early Jewish Christians was Aramaic.  If this was in fact the case, then the first writers of the New Testament were also the first translators of the New Testament.

By far the majority of scholars hold to the New Testament source language being Greek.  There’s a minority who claim it was Aramaic, written in Syriac characters.  Other minority scholars suggests that the primary source languages the New Testament was Latin or even Hebrew.  The Aramaic minority community has very good evidence on their side, including, as has already been stated that Aramaic was the likely primary language of Jesus and the apostles.  There are certainly very early Aramaic versions of the New Testament in existence, and there are good cases to be made that some of the Greek New Testament appears to be a literary translation from Aramaic.  Those who believe the original language of the New Testament was Latin, point to so-calledLatinisms in books such as the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

What I do not understand, is why for centuries scholars and intellectuals have taken sides in this debate.  Rather than taking what I consider to be the most obvious position.  The books of the New Testament were written by various authors.  Over several decades to various people groups.  It’s well known that numerous languages were spoken throughout Palestine and the Roman Empire at that time.  Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, was highly educated and almost certainly spoke several languages.  Luke was a doctor, and it can be assumed was also well educated, likely also speaking multiple languages.  It is also not out of the realm of possibility to suggest that the other writers of New Testament were multilingual.  Taking all this into consideration, it appears to me most likely, that the New Testament was written in multiple different languages.  I think likely much of it was written in Greek, but it’s very likely that someone is also written in Aramaic.  If the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written, as some have theorized, as a legal defense of Paul to Roman officials, Latin would certainly be the most obvious language for them.

While, you’re digesting that, think on this, what language was spoken in the exchange between Jesus and Pontius Pilate?

I am generally a moral absolutist.  I believe that there is a right and wrong path to take on moral issues.  However I also believe that decisions must made completly on a case by case basis.  I believe that in the exact situation, defined by the exact parameters X, there is a right and a wrong.  X parameters will never exist again, so you cannot use X as an exact precedent for any future situations.  X can at best be an imperfect analogy to learn from. 

An interesting facet of this is that, two very similar situations in two different times or locations could have opposite correct answers.  This starts to sound allot like relativism but it is not.  I will use an example that most of us are familiar with, getting a job. 

1. You submit your CV to Mr. Z, HR manager for the company you want to work for.

2.  You make a follow up call to make sure Z got your CV, and he did.

3.  You hear nothing from Z.

4.  To get a job you will need to be persistent.

5. Calling again would mean that you believe that (A) Z is incompetent or that (B) he has rejected you and you don’t care.
           (A) is insulting
           (B) is dehumanizing

6.  There is a moral imperative to support yourself and your family.  Unless you have deep pockets or some other means of making a living that, means you need a job. 

In this case, I believe that (6) trumps (5) and you should be persistent.  However in a more Utopian world, where people have progressed mentally and ethically, there would be no (4) and so you should notcall again.  This is because the man on the street and Mr. Z alike, would both be aware of how rude it is to call someone after they have dealt you a de facto rejection.  We do not live in this world and so Mr. Z actually expects you to follow up several times if you really want the job. 

So in a more perfect world there are more exacting standards of right and wrong.  I do believe that society (or humanity) can progress to higher level, where the higher standards would apply.  I also believe that we can regress, and have been doing allot more of that lately.

So I believe there is an absolute right and wrong relative to the exact parameters of the situation.  If there were no absolutes, it would be an amoral world.  If there were absolutes irregardless of the parameters, legalism would determine right and wrong.  This is one reason why Christianity is the only major world religion that is plausibly right.  In Christianity there are absolutes but there is not legalism.  This is because Christianity is a relationship, Christians are to seek council from God on issues, rather than citing case law.

*I know Uniquanatismis not a word.  I also know that it does not mean anything.  The point is that there are absolutes and every situation is absolutely unique. 

First I would like to say that Mormons deservedly have the reputation of being highly moral people. It is true that Mormonism shares a common ethic with Christianity. However that does not make them Christians and they are not. My goal in writing this is not to offend but rather to inform. I think it is important to understand what twelve million people believe. This is perhaps more true today than ever before, with a Mormon running for president. Please interpret what you read below as written with the humblest intentions in mind and check the facts for yourself.Mormonism or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) was founded by Joseph Smith. Mormons will claim that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ and merely restored by Smith. Smith claimed to be a prophet who received visions starting in 1820. In his first vision God and Jesus appeared to him and told him that all modern churches were an abomination. Subsequent visions were mostly from an angel named Moroni.Moroni directed Smith to a hill with “golden plates” buried in it. On these plates was inscribed an “account of the former inhabitants of this continent and containing “the fullness of the everlasting Gospel” as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants of this land.” The inscription was in a language known as “reformed Egyptian.” Buried with the plates were “seer stones” for aiding in the translation of the plates. Smith spent around three years translating the work. His primary method of translation was to place the stones in his hat and place the hat over his face. Upon doing this, the words would appear to him in the darkness. He would then dictate them to an aid. He did not need to look at the plates in order to translate them and often they were not even in his presence while he was translating. Smith’s translation of the plates became what is known today as “The Book of Mormon” and is considered divinely inspired scripture by the LDS church.

I hope you have enjoyed reading my previous two posts entitled, The Barnyard Dialogues, “Part I, Two Chickens Take on the Problem of Evil” and “Part II, Two Chickens Take another Swipe at the Problem of Evil.”  .  If you have not then, click the links and enjoy them. 

If you have read them then I’m sure you are aware that they are written as satire and not merely for entertainment value.  I want to present here a partial explanation of what was meant by the stories.  I want to say here, what I meant to say there, only this time without any talking chickens.  So here goes.

As the subtitles say, the story is about the problem of evil.  For those of you who are not familiar with the problem of evil, I have placed the “Logical Problem of Evil” below.  It is taken from Wikipedia.

Logical problem of evil

1. God exists. (premise)
2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word “God”)
3. God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition)
4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition)
5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
   1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
   2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
   3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, or God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent (i.e. God is omnipotent and omniscient but not all-benevolent, omnipotent and all-benevolent but not omniscient, or omniscient and all-benevolent but not omnipotent).

To be simplistic and brief, the problem of evil says that a good god and evil cannot co-exist, therefore one or the other must not exist.  Because most people have experienced evil in some form, it is used to make a case against the existence of god.  A solution to the problem of evil is called a “theodicy”.  Though many different theodicies exist, what I have tried to demonstrate through the Barnyard Dialogues is a particular theodicy based on semantics.  I suspect that others have noticed it before me and, I believe that this should only lend credence to it.  I will explain it below.

Evil is not an entity that exists on its own merit.  Evil exists as a parasite to good.  In the absolute absence of good there could be no evil.  The opposite is not true, good does not require evil in order to be good.  Something is good when it fulfills the purpose it was meant to serve.  Something lacks goodness when it fails to fulfill the purpose it was meant for.  Something is evil when it fulfills a purpose contrary to what it was meant for.  Therefore, having a good purpose is a prerequisite for being evil. 

So in order to call something evil someone, must first give it a purpose for it to pervert.  So Evil must be defined in relation to somebody.  The vast majority of the time evil is defined in relation to either man or to God. 

In the first illustration with the chickens, Clare defines Evil (missing eggs) by chickens (man).  She then comes to the conclusion that because evil exists, the farmer (God) must not.  She sees this as a mistake when she learns that the farmer is the one taking the eggs for his own good purpose.  In the Problem of Evil, it is a mistake to define evil on man’s terms and then apply it to God.  God is by definition a greater being than man, just as the farmer in the story, is a greater being than the chickens. 

In Part II, Clare defines evil in terms of the farmer (God) but this also is a mistake as it presupposes that the farmer does in fact exist.  If evil as defined by God exists then, God must exist.  If God does not exist, then neither does evil as defined by God and the whole argument falls apart as, evil must exist in order to be a problem. 

It seems to me that the problem of evil is that it cannot be defined in terms that would cast doubt on the existence of God. 

Click for Barnyard Dialogues Part 1 

The Scene: Two Chickens in nesting boxes at night.

Clare: You still awake, Marsha?

Marsha:

Clare: Marsha!

Marsha: Hu! What?

Clare: I’ve been doing some figuring again

Marsha: The kind you do with your toes, or the kind you do with your brain?

Clare: The brain kind.

Marsha: Clare, the last time you did brain figures, you set my rheumatoids off into a scuttle and I laid pear shaped eggs for three weeks!  Besides, I talked to Herman the Goat, and he told me all about the eggs.

Clare: You spoke with Herman the Goat?  What did he say?

Marsha: He said that you’re just an afarmerist and he’s seen your kind before.  And he told me what really happens to our eggs.

Clare: Well out with it!  What did he say?

Marsha: Well, you’re not going to believe this but… I didn’t believe it either when Herman the Goat first told me but…

Clare: Marsha!

Marsha: OK. Herman the Goat said that what really happens to the eggs is that… that the farmer takes em!

Clare: What?!  What would the farmer want with our eggs?

Marsha: He takes them in the house so that his wife can sit on them.  Herman the Goat says that she can’t lay eggs.  It has something to do with the blue jean overalls getting the way, but he reckons that a woman of her girth could sit on at least three dozen at a time!

Clare: Well I’ll be!  If I had teeth, I’d whistle through em!  How did Herman the Goat get to be so smart?

Marsha: The beard and the trash.

Clare: What?

Marsha:Its the beard and the trash.  That’s what makes him so smart.  Just think about it for a second.  The beard is what Herman the Goat has that no other animal has.

Clare: Hmmm.  Makes sense, but what about the trash?

Marsha: Well, important documents and manuscripts and such get put in the trash.  Herman the Goat, he eats the trash, see?  Well when he finds an important manuscript, he doesn’t eat it straight away. 

Clare: He doesn’t?

Marsha: Nope, he reads it first.  Then he eats it.

Clare: He never ceases to amaze.

Marsha: And you know the farmer’s wife tells him important stuff too.  Just the other day, she had to tell him something so important that she yelled it out the kitchen window instead of walking outside to tell him.

Clare: What was it?

Marsha: “Herman, zen tha turn up patcha gin!”  And do you know what he did?

Clare: What?

Marsha: He kicked up his hoofs and ran off as fast as he could to take care of whatever emergency it was that she told him about!

Clare: What a trooper!

Marsha: So, the point is that, the farmer takes the eggs so that his wife can sit on them.  That is not evil and, that should be the end of your nonsense about the farmer not existing.

 Clare: Oh, but that is what I was going to tell you.

Marsha: What?

Clare: I have another theory about the farmer.  This one has nothing to do with eggs.

Marsha: What is it this time?

Clare: Its Old Stella.

Marsha: What about her?

Clare: Well, didn’t you hear?

Marsha: No?  I don’t think so?

Clare: She finally kicked the bucket!

Marsha: No! You don’t say!

Clare: Yep, she just up and keeled over, by the windmill yesterday mornin’.

Marsha: Was it the droppsies?

Clare: I heard it was cold feet, but of course I can’t be sure.

Marsha: Well that’s a shame.  She was a good hen.

Clare: That’s my point.

Marsha: What’s your point?

Clare: That she was a good hen.  She was a prize layer.  The farmer paid sixteen dollars for her at the fair.

Marsha: Sixteen!

Clare: Yes, sixteen.  Least-ways, that’s what Thelma told me.  So, my theory about the farmer and the eggs didn’t work…

Marsha: No, it sure didn’t.  The farmer exists and he is the one taking the eggs, so its not an evil after all.

Clare: Well I’m still not convinced.

Marsha: Oh Clare!  Give it a rest!

Clare: Just hear me out.

Marsha: Remember my rheumatoids.

Clare: The farmer needs chickens, right?  Its part of being a farmer, right?

Marsha: Makes sense.

Clare: So, Old Stella, being what she is…

Marsha: MmmmHmmm.

Clare: Well that’s an evil that even the farmer would see.  He’s out sixteen dollars!  He’s got to replace Stella!

Marsha: Clare, I’m starting to get goose-pimply again.

Clare:  How could the farmer allow such a thing to happen?

Marsha: Clare.

Clare: The farmer cannot exist!

Marsha: Clare!

Clare: At last! I have proved it!

Marsha: Oh oh! I just don’t know what to think!  Now you’ve got me thinking like an afarmerist!

Clare: Yeah?  How’s it feel?

Marsha:  Oh, My feathers are all in a tizzle!  I need to talk to Herman the Goat about this.  I’m sure he’s got an expla –Ploop– You’ve made me go and lay an egg!

Clare: Is it pear-shaped?

Marsha: No. Its more like a potato! 

Clare: Well, the truth can be difficult to swallow at first.