Does meticulously-tuned evil count as a defeater for meticulously-tuned good?

There are two key issues I want to explore further in relation to the waving statute, St. Tom's Orphanage, and other cases of synchronicity. The topic of this thread is evil and other potential defeaters to positive events with putative high MDS.

Let's begin with SilverBullet:

"You've clearly spent some time thinking this over, so in the meantime, I would like to ask you if there any features of any kind of event that you can think of that would begin to compel you to believe that such an invisible, magical, wish-granting entity does NOT exist? Or does this "evidence" only work one way?"

An Aside

It is always important to note how language is being used. The prolife advocate bristles at being called "antichoice" because she knows how language can be subtly used to undermine or marginalize a person's position.

"Invisible, magical, wish-granting entity" is, to my mind, a form of this kind of prejudicial language. Just focus on the use of the term "wish-granting". As a person who completed a degree in English literature, I am familiar with "wish-granting" as a signal that we are dealing with the realm of fantasy literature, perhaps with a genie or good fairy. There are neutral modes of expression which Silver Bullet clearly chose not to use. And I have to assume this was because SB sought to maximize a prejudicial association between the views being advanced here as regards inference to design in mundane affairs and the tales of the Brothers Grimm.

Back to the Main Story

Despite my grumbling, I didn't miss SB's main point: "does this 'evidence' only work one way?"

SB wants me to say what kind of event would count against the inference of design. Generally I could say the extent, distribution and degree of evil in the world. Some people also might say unanswered prayers (though that surely depends on the prayer being prayed). However, as I'll say in my next post, I think that the lack of evidence for answered prayers (e.g. in a statistically significant way under controlled conditions) is not evidentially significant insofar as we are dealing here not with a natural, testable law but with an agent.

Nonetheless, evil events are certainly a great candidate for being a defeater. I saw "The Lovely Bones" yesterday (that is, I saw the movie, and not simply the novel sitting on a shelf somewhere) and I thought it was much better than the critics did. But it is also completely horrifying as this perv traps Susie Salmon in his dirt dungeon. If a person concludes from horrendous cases of evil like child murder that there just could not be a god then they have a putative defeater for any event with a high MDS.

This issue of evil is a big one. With her typically abrasive style, EssEff lays down the gauntlet: "So when a commercial airliner goes down despite the prayers of the people on board, it's because it's good for them?...or is it because one of them is a gay homosexual?"

Because one of them is a gay homosexual? (As opposed to a straight homosexual? Or does she mean a ‘Bing Crosby type-gay as in very happy homosexual?')

Finely-tuned Evil Events

Today BrapCronk wins the blue ribbon for the most fully articulated response. BC takes the problem of evil as a defeater to events with a high MDS and fine-tunes it:

"To be fair and objective, should I also be on the lookout for stories in which a series of improbable occurrences added up to negative consequence? To pluck one from recent headlines, a large tree limb fell in New York's Central Park, killing a baby and critical injuring the mother, who were posing for a picture being taken by the father/husband. Last year a couple of teenagers were jogging along the downtown area of a small town when an awning, improperly installed at least 10 years earlier, collapsed as they were jogging underneath it, killing one and seriously injuring the other. These stories certainly don't have an MDS as high as the story of Tom's orphanage, but they (or other tragic stories) may make the cut nonetheless. If we're going to consider giving God credit for miracles, it seems only fair that he gets credit for tragicles, too. Since He works in mysterious ways, though, we are really in no position to judge something to be miraculously good or bad. It just is."

In short, we have two classes of MDS.

Class 1: Good Miraculous Divine Score
Class 2: Evil Miraculous Divine Score

The E-MDS rates the degree to which an event of evil/suffering appears to be finely tuned.

Let me offer my own example of an E-MDS so as to make the problem my own.

Greg and Lisa desperately want a child. Finally after several years of trying with prayer Lisa conceives and Greg Jr. is born. Tragically, Greg Jr. is stricken with Alexander's Disease, a very rare and fatal disorder of the nervous system which claims his life after six months.

Greg and Lisa conceive again and they discover this on the anniversary of Greg Jr.'s passing. They take that as a sign of God's blessing you can bet. But to their unspeakable anguish, this infant, named Davey, is stricken with Pediatric Leukodystrophies, an even more rare and fatal disease which claims the child within months.

A year later, now on the anniversary of Davey's death, they discover that Lisa is pregnant again. This child, baby Michael, is born healthy. Finally God has smiled on Greg and Lisa! But two months after his birth the family is caught in a tornado while picnicking. While Greg and Lisa survive unscathed, little Michael is sucked into the vortex and is never seen again.

Do cases with a high E-MDS such as characterize Greg and Lisa's unspeakable woe, count against other cases with a high G-MDS such as St. Tom's orphanage? And if so, then in what sense do they count against it?

I'll offer my own two cents later, but for now, talk amongst yourselves.