Uploaded June 2022 | Updated September 2026, 3 hours ago
There are many famous examples of unintelligent design in nature, but what about malevolent design? Some natural systems are aimed at producing suffering: they cause suffering by acting in accordance with their natural purpose, function, or design plan. Why would we infer a benevolent, omnipotent designer from malevolent design?
The fact that predation – a striking example of teleological evil – is a prominent feature of the biological order is very surprising on theism. Predation isn’t a feature of the biological order because animals are acting against their design plan – exactly the opposite. The fact that animals must savagely kill and devour each other in order to survive is strong evidence against the hypothesis that nature was designed, directly or indirectly, by an unsurpassably great being of perfect love and goodness.
The Problem of Teleological Evil – Felipe Leon exapologist.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-problem-of-teleological-evil.html
An Atheological Argument from Evil Natural Laws – Quentin Smith infidels.org/library/modern/quentin-smith-evil-laws
Justin Schieber of Real Atheology interviews Quentin Smith (2017) youtu.be/mvkghIrF7XY?t=385
The Best Argument Against God? Teleological Evil Explained - The Non-Alchemist youtube.com/watch?v=STFClYpV8NY
Transcript emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2022/06/20/teleological-evil
/ Counter Apologetics /
Consider supporting at patreon.com/counter
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0xp05xgyg04BWh0U1tCZ0z
/ Walden Pod /
Consider supporting at patreon.com/waldenpod
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/5It3kjkrB9CTDen1Sx3aGl?si=fZ6MENZ4TdSLDPLAJ_6dAA&nd=1
/ Timestamps /
00:00 The Argument from Teleological Evil
06:18 The Argument from Evil Natural Laws
09:23 Outro
There are many famous examples of unintelligent design in nature, but what about malevolent design? Some natural systems are aimed at producing suffering: they cause suffering by acting in accordance with their natural purpose, function, or design plan. Why would we infer a benevolent, omnipotent designer from malevolent design?
The fact that predation – a striking example of teleological evil – is a prominent feature of the biological order is very surprising on theism. Predation isn’t a feature of the biological order because animals are acting against their design plan – exactly the opposite. The fact that animals must savagely kill and devour each other in order to survive is strong evidence against the hypothesis that nature was designed, directly or indirectly, by an unsurpassably great being of perfect love and goodness.
The Problem of Teleological Evil – Felipe Leon exapologist.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-problem-of-teleological-evil.html
An Atheological Argument from Evil Natural Laws – Quentin Smith infidels.org/library/modern/quentin-smith-evil-laws
Justin Schieber of Real Atheology interviews Quentin Smith (2017) youtu.be/mvkghIrF7XY?t=385
The Best Argument Against God? Teleological Evil Explained - The Non-Alchemist youtube.com/watch?v=STFClYpV8NY
Transcript emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2022/06/20/teleological-evil
/ Counter Apologetics /
Consider supporting at patreon.com/counter
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0xp05xgyg04BWh0U1tCZ0z
/ Walden Pod /
Consider supporting at patreon.com/waldenpod
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/5It3kjkrB9CTDen1Sx3aGl?si=fZ6MENZ4TdSLDPLAJ_6dAA&nd=1
/ Timestamps /
00:00 The Argument from Teleological Evil
06:18 The Argument from Evil Natural Laws
09:23 Outro




![Schopenhauer on Mind & Matter
Arthur Schopenhauer developed a fascinating version of dual-aspect monism, according to which from outside, the world appears as representation, but from inside, it appears as will: ontological monism and epistemological dualism. To Schopenhauer, desire-driven will is what we are from inside, and he goes on to argue that we should think of the underlying reality of all appearance in the same way. You represent my will as a body, but there’s an underlying reality to your representation that’s experiential in character. Schopenhauer thinks the basis of this dual-aspect character of reality pervades the natural world, organic and inorganic. Why? Because this is our only form of insight into—or acquaintance with—anything as a thing in itself.
We also discuss the connection between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, whether Schopenhauer is an idealist or a panpsychist, and explore a couple arguments for panpsychism.
“[O]n the path of objective knowledge, thus starting from the representation, we shall never get beyond the representation...We shall therefore remain at the outside of things; we shall never be able to penetrate into their inner nature, and investigate what they are in themselves…So far, I agree with Kant. But … we ourselves are the thing-in-itself. Consequently, a way from within stands open to us to that real inner nature of things to which we cannot penetrate from without. It is, so to speak, a subterranean passage, a secret alliance, which, as if by treachery, places us all at once in the fortress that could not be taken by attack from without.”
SHOWNOTES, LINKS, & REFERENCES: https://audioboom.com/posts/7758773-33-schopenhauer-on-mind-matter
Transcript https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2020/12/23/schopenhauer-on-mind-matter/
Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychism
Listen to Counter Apologetics here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2
Listen to Walden Pod here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
/ timestamps /
00:00 Schopenhauers personality
02:23 Will and Representation
10:15 Panpsychism and the key to movement
16:46 A subterranean passage
20:27 Different sides of the same mountain Schopenhauer on Mind & Matter](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TG3TRQ94KjE/mqdefault.jpg)





