DAVID KYLE JOHNSON, PH.D.

NATURAL EVIL &

THE SIMULATION HYPOTHESIS

WHAT IS THE SIMULATION HYPOTHESIS?

•The "simulation hypothesis" suggests that we all, here in the “real” world, actually live in a computer simulation.

•I am going to show you two things: • The likelihood of the simulation hypothesis being true is much higher than you think

• Theists (those who believe in the traditional God) are committed to believing that it actually is true.

•But let us begin with these questions: • How could the simulation hypothesis even possibly

be true? • How could physical beings, such as us, be in a computer simulation?

THE MIND IS A PROGRAM

•Mental activity is a result of brain activity—of the way our neurons are wired and fire.

•Anything that replicated the function of our neurons would have a mind just like ours.

•The function of our neurons can, potentially, be replicated by computer chips

•So, the program of our minds could potentially be run on something else, like a computer hard drive.•This makes simulated worlds possible.

SIMULATED WORLDS

•One could create new unique programs/minds and copy them onto a hard drive.

•One could then feed inputs to those programs —the same kind of inputs our brains receive from the outside world via our senses.

•Those minds (simulated persons) would experience the same kinds of things we do.• Virtual objects would be experiencedas physical objects

not like this

SIMULATED WORLDS

•One could create new unique programs/minds and copy them onto a hard drive.

•One could then feed inputs to those programs —the same kind of inputs our brains receive from the outside world via our senses.

•Those minds (simulated persons) would experience the same kinds of things we do.• Virtual objects would be experiencedas physical objects but like this

•That is a simulated world

MOTIVATIONS FOR SIM-WORLDS

•Historical: “How would World War II have ended had Hitler known about the D-Day invasion?”

•Political science: “What effects will ‘Obama-Care’ have on society?”

•Biology: “How will human evolution progress?”

•Video-Games: “How much fun would it be to create and control my own world?”

DO WE LIVE IN A SIMULATED WORLD?

•Most people would say that such a notion is ridiculous. • “Sure, I guess it’s possible, but what are the odds?”

•Well, Nick Bostrom has argued that it is much more likely than you think: around 20%.

HOW MANY SIMULATED WORLDS?

•There is a physical universe; and either a simulated world will be created in it, or it won’t.

•But if it will be, there won’t be just one. • We didn’t stop with one iPhone; we wouldn’t stop with one simulated world.

•So…• either there is one real physical universe and in that universe no simulated world is ever created

or • in the one real physical universe that exists, thousands upon millions upon billions of simulated worlds are created.

•And if we ever create a simulated world, we’ll then know it’s not the former.

IT’S ONE OR THE OTHER…

VS.

WHAT KIND OF WORLD WOULD WE LIVE IN?

•If only one physical universe exists, but billions of simulated worlds exist, where would we be?

•You couldn’t tell from the inside. •Since simulated worlds can exist in simulated worlds, the fact that we have created one doesn’t mean we aren’t in one.

•All we’d have to go on in the odds. •How many physical universes are there that we could inhabit? Only one. How many simulated worlds could we inhabit? Billions! So, given what we know, what would the odds be that we didn’t live in a simulated world? Billions to one. It would be a near guarantee that we do live in a sim-world.

WHAT KIND OF WORLD WOULD WE LIVE IN?

•To review: If we create a simulated world, we’d know that there are billions of simulated universes but only one physical one.

•And if so, it’s a near guarantee that we are in a simulated world.

•So, the odds that we inhabit a simulated world is determined by the odds that we will one day create one. •So, one wonders:

HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT WE WILL ONE DAY CREATE A SIMULATED WORLD?

5 possibilities•No, because of technological boundaries

•No, because of ethical objections

•No, because we lose interest •No, because we blow ourselves up first

•Yes (because we rock!)

HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT WE WILL ONE DAY CREATE A SIMULATED WORLD?

5 possibilities•No, because of technological boundaries

•No, because of ethical objections

•No, because we lose interest •No, because we blow ourselves up first

•Yes (because we rock!)

= 20%= 20%= 20%= 20%= 20%

HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT WE WILL ONE DAY CREATE A SIMULATED WORLD?

5 possibilities•No, because of technological boundaries

•No, because of ethical objections•No, because we lose interest •No, because we blow ourselves up first

•Yes (because we rock!)

= 20%= 20%= 20%= 20%= 20%

So, it’s 20% likely that we will create a simulated world. And since the creation of a simulated world will nearly guarantee that we live in one…it’s 20% likely that we live in a simulated world! (Much more likely than you thought.)

OK, SO NOW WHAT?

•Ok, so it’s more likely than you thought that we live in a computer simulation.

•But why are theists committed to believing that it actually is true?

•Let us begin answering this question by considering “the logical problem of natural evil.”

WHAT IS NATURAL EVIL?•Moral evil is evil caused by moral agents—agents with free will (e.g., humans).

•Natural evil is evil that is not caused by moral agents but is instead caused by naturally occurring phenomena—hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, diseases, plagues, etc. (i.e., “calamities”).

•The logical problem of natural evil suggests that there is a logical contradiction in the suggestion that both God and natural evil exists.

(MISUNDERSTANDING) THE LOGICAL PROBLEM OF NATURAL EVIL

The problem: It seems that the following are logically inconsistent:

(1)God (an omnipotent, omniscience, omni-benevolent being) exists

(2)Natural evil exists.

Plantinga: All you need is a logically consistent story in which both (1) and (2) are true. Here’s one: “God exists and allows demons to cause calamites.”

It is logically possible that God would not prevent the evil actions of free agents, and since demons would be freely acting agents, it would be logically consistent for God to allow demons to cause such calamities.

ALVIN PLANTINGA

THE FAILURE OF PLANTINGA

•Plantinga’s story is not one in which “natural evil” and “God” co-exist.

•It is a story in which the calamites we usually call “natural evils” are not natural at all, but instead are moral evils—evils brought about by moral agents.

•And the logical problem of natural evil is not merely a problem of how God and calamities can co-exist.

OLD EXPLANATIONS OF CALAMITIES

•Aquinas suggested they were punishment for sin—perhaps Adam’s, perhaps our own.

•The Gnostics suggested they were the work of the imperfect God of the Old Testament

•Others blamed demons. •Such solutions had already functioned perfectly well to protect theistic belief from calamities for centuries...until science came along.

DAMN YOU SCIENCE!•Science originated as a quest to find the laws that govern the universe.

•When we did, we discovered explanation for calamities rooted in these newly discovered laws. • Tornadoes are the result of a complex interplay between cool, dry air and warm, moist air in thunderstorms.

• Earthquakes are the result of tectonic plates slipping and releasing vast amounts of energy that build up as they press together.

• Hurricanes are the result of (roughly put) water vapor hovering over low pressure areas in the ocean.

• Diseases and mental disorders are the work of viruses, germs, genetic anomalies, chemical imbalances and brain injuries.

•This is when calamities became known as “natural disasters.”

THE PROBLEM

•Since natural disasters are ultimately a result of the laws that govern our universe…

•…and since, according to theism, God is the one who designed the universe, and its laws…

•…and yet natural disasters cause massive amounts of suffering and steal life without discrimination frequently, and at random…

•…well, hopefully you can see the problem here.

THE ALEX PROBLEMLet me explain by example: •Suppose I designed into the blueprint of my house

puppy killing machines, embedded into the walls, that randomly, and without warning, reach out with sharp picks and saws to kill any puppy within reach.

•Suppose I then I made my little yorkie Alex live in my house.

•I could hardly be said to be a loving master. • Even if he is lucky and is never in the wrong place at the wrong time, I’m one lousy bastard.

•Yet this is exactly the kind of universe that God has designed for us to live in—one that can, and does, reach out, without warming, randomly, and kills anyone within reach.

2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI

THE PROBLEM EXPRESSED

The following are logically incompatible: (1)God (an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent

being) exists. (3) God is the creator and designer of the physical

universe, including the laws that govern it. (4) Natural disasters, and the evil they cause, are a direct byproduct of the laws that govern our universe.

Notice: “Demons did it” would entail that (4) is false, but would not resolve the incompatibility (and be contrary to science).

IT HASN’T BEEN SOLVED YET

•This problem of natural evil is one that theists have yet to adequately address.

•It is not a problem of why God would allow natural disasters, but how he could ultimately be the author of them by authoring what necessities them: the laws of physics.

•Let’s look at some failed solutions

FAILED SOLUTION 1:DENY SCIENCE

•Dr. Price: Lightening is God’s wrath.•Rev. Jerry Falwell: AIDS is god’s punishment for homosexuality

•Rev. Peter Marshal: Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishing America for sexual immorality

•Rev. John Piper: God warned the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) against homosexuality using a tornado to knock down the steeple of the church in which they were meeting

•Pat Robertson: the Haitian earthquake was a result of the Haitians making a pact with the devil.

Most academic theists wish to remain in step with science, however.

FAILED SOLUTION 2:GOD CAN’T CONTROL THE LAWS

•Murphy: “There was no other kind of universe God could have created; God had to use the laws we have.”

•Objection 1: By definition, everything that is logically possible is within God’s power and, by definition, the physical laws restrict only what is physically possible. Laws that don’t necessitate ND are logically possible.

•Objection 2: The logical possibility of a world without laws that necessitate natural disasters is built right into most theists’ doctrinal system: the doctrine of heaven.

FAILED SOLUTION 3:NATURAL EVIL ISN’T REALLY BAD

•Swinburne: “Natural evil isn’t really bad. It provides, for example, opportunities for compassion, generosity and courage that we wouldn’t otherwise have.”

•Objection 1: There are other logically possible ways to accomplish such goods—moral evil certainly gives us ample opportunity.

•Objection 2: Such good’s don’t outweigh natural evil. (Doctor’s Without Boarders.)

•Objection 3: Bond Super-Villain

FAILED SOLUTION 4:SKEPTICAL THEISM

•Wykstra: “Just because we can’t see a reason for God to author natural evil, that is no reason to think that there is no such reason. God may have reasons beyond our ken.”

•Objection 1: Natural evil still counts as evidence against God (Rowe’s Costume Party Example).

•Objection 2: Makes all objective moral judgments worthless.

•Objection 3: You can’t dismiss a logical incompatibility with “it might be compatible; you don’t know.” All arguments would be worthless.

SO, WHY KEEP BELIEVING?

•Plantinga: “Because I already have reason to believe in God—reason enough that trumps the threat that the logical problem of natural evil poses to his existence.”

•What evidence? • Teleological arguments• Cosmological arguments• Mystical experience (sensus divinitatis)•This evidence is faulty, but let’s grant it for the sake of argument.

•This would allow the theist to rationally continue to believe without solving the problem.

•Why?

THE STORY OF CALEB•Suppose my neighbor Caleb has been accused of the cold blooded murder of an infant, and the evidence against him is completely convincing.

•However, through a psychic connection I have seen that he is incapable of committing a morally heinous action.

•I need not explain away the evidence against him to justify my belief that he is innocent; since I already know he can’t commit a morally heinous action, I know there must be an explanation for why it seems that he did despite the fact that he did not.

•The theist is in an analogous situation with God.

THE PRICE OF THE SOLUTION

•Embracing this solution, however, commits the theist to believing we live in a computer simulation. Why?

•Even if we grant them knowledge of God’s existence, the only way to make sense of why our universe has natural evil as an inevitable consequence of the very laws that govern it, without violating God’s moral integrity, is to assume that someone else designed our universe—and the most likely alternate designer is a computer programmer.

RETURN TO CALEB

•I know Caleb is “innocent” because I know he can’t commit a morally heinous action, even though the evidence suggests otherwise.

•But I can maintain this belief either by believing that someone else did it….

•…or by maintain that killing incent children is not morally heinous.

•But I should reject the option I have the least reason to think is false—so clearly, I should think that someone else did it.

THE ANALOGY

•I know God is “innocent” (of weaving natural evil into the very fabric of the universe) because I know he can’t commit a morally heinous action, even though the evidence suggests otherwise.

•But I can maintain this belief only by either by believing that someone else designed the universe….

•…or by maintaining that natural disasters aren’t really evil.

•But I should reject the option I have least reason to think is true—so clearly, I should think that someone else designed the universe.

I HAVE LOTS OF EVIDENCE THAT NATURAL DISASTERS ARE EVIL

•This is the one thing that nearly everyone agrees is true.

•This is why we used to think demons caused them.•This is why we work tirelessly to prevent them and mitigate the damage they do.

•This is why everyone would prefer they never happen.•Just making a joke about them can make you lose your job as the Aflac duck.

TYPHOON HAIYAN

I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK GOD DESIGNED OUR UNIVERSE

•The design arguments are faulty• E.g., there is no universe “fine tuning”

•Such arguments only point to “a designer,” not to God specifically.

•The fact that natural evil is deigned into our universe is evidence that God didn’t design our universe.

WE’RE IN A SIMULATION!

•What is the most likely scenario in which God exists but didn’t design our universe?

•Denying the physical universe was created by God denies (3), and is contrary to theism.

•Suggesting that we all live in a dream is merely unfalsifiable—it is not likely true.

•But the simulation hypothesis, remember, is 20% likely. So that’s the most likely solution.

WE’RE IN A SIMULATION!

•This solves, perfectly, the logical problem of natural evil.

•It is a story in which (1), (3) and (4) are all true together. • God exists; • he designed the physical universe• natural disasters are a result of the laws that govern our universe.

•Yet since God didn’t design our universe he can’t be morally blamed for that and can still be tri-omni.

•And the “free will” solution allows the theist to explain why God would allow the programmer to create a world like ours—one with so many calamities.

ANALOGY: INTELLIGENT DESIGN

•Even if I grant Behe God’s existence and the intelligent design of our body’s systems, since the design is flawed, creative intelligent aliens are a much more likely explanation.

•Likewise, even if I grant the theists God’s existence, and that the universe is designed, since natural evil is embedded into the very fabric of our universe, a computer programmer is a much more likely explanation.

CONCLUSION

•Of course, the simulation hypothesis is not something the theist is going to want to be tethered to—and that is part of my point. The logical problem of natural evil has been ignored for a long time because of a general, unwarranted, assumption that Plantinga solved it. He did not. Theists need to return their attention to the logical problem of natural evil. Otherwise, they better start arguing that believing we live in a computer simulation isn’t crazy.