Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 08-21-2002, 08:21 AM

Hey McDarwin I'll try my hand at your original question.

Is your problem with the fact of predation or with the amount of suffering it entails?

Obviously, from a biological standpoint predation is a good thing. If one were to do away with predation, one would have to do away with procreation where only finite resources are available. Overpopulation of a species in an area of limited resources can have some disastrous consequences for the eco-system at hand.

Now, if your argument is with the suffering inherent in predatory acts, I might remind you that the capacity for experiencing suffering is, as it is given, a good thing. Humans and other animals have pain sensors as a defense mechanism. Let us remember that probably 999 times out of a 1000 our ability to perceive pain, and to use that pain as a reminder to avoid it's consequences, usually saves us from more adverse consequences than the pain itself. Pain is simply a warning signal that allows us to avoid destruction. It is better to feel that a fire is hot and pull your hands from the flames than to let your hand be consumed totally in the flames. Thus, the capacity to feel pain is a benevolent attribute. The fact that pain can simply make an unavoidable death or destruction more unpleasant has to be weighed against all the death and destruction that is avoided by the capacity to sense and avoid pain.

In other words, you are viewing pain and suffering as if it were designed as an end, when in reality it was designed as a means for survival. There are obviously times when animals experience a painful death, but there ability to percieve pain, and their natural tendency to remember and avoid pain, probably extended their existence to a far greater degree than if they had never experienced any pain at all. In that sense, pain is a good thing.

Suffering exists to let us know that there is a problem and to give us the impetus to remedy that problem if we can. Suffering is not an end unto itself, it is a means to avoid destruction.

Now, from here I'm sure we'll get into the discussion about how none of these excuses have any merit when discussing an omnimax God who could have created a world where none of this was necessary. I would say that while God is indeed omnimax, his creativity was proscribed by his ends. That is to say, paraphrasing C.S. Lewis, how could an omiscient God fail to know the best way to bring his plans about, and how could an omnipotent God fail to execute them. Christian theists proclaim that given God's goals, the current arrangement of life is the best form possible for that goal, and it is logically impossible for even Omniscience to come up with a better way of doing something than the best way.

So, I think the problem of suffering to be a real problem to belief in God, an atheist needs to describe a scenario by which God could have better attained his goals than the way in which they are being pursued presently.

I would describe God's primary goal (with us at least) as being the creation of free-willed sons and daughters who serve him purely because they want to based on what's known about his character, not because of any knowledge about his power. I think CS Lewis explained very well in the first couple of chapters of his book "The Problem of Pain" how any form of life with the possibility of freedom admits the possibility of pain in some form from the outset. ( Briefly: to be able to choose, if choice is to have meaning, is to admit the possibility of choosing incorrectly, and the person who chooses incorrectly will suffer more than the one who chooses correctly.)

So in complaining about pain, you would have to come up with a better way of acheiving God's goals than the ones we have now. You can say all you want that an omnimax God could have come up with a better way, but that is only if this way is indeed not the best way. All you have to do to prove that this is not the case, and that suffering is not a necessary part of freedom, is just to come up with one scenario that is better given the Christian God's goals. Otherwise, we have no reason to believe that this way, however inconvienent to us, is not the best way.

PS:

(I really wish at least one of you guys on this site would read the first 50 pages of CS Lewis's The Problem of Pain. I've been on about it since my first post and I still haven't found anybody whose read it. It's at Barnes and Nobles for like 8 bucks people! I know you guys have told me that C.S. Lewis is not the greatest Christian thinker, but I've read a lot of the guys you folks have recommended [William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler and I'm trying to get my hands on some Plantinga] but I still have not read a better theodicy than that in the Problem of Pain [at least that of the first few chapters, the rest of it gets a little nutty]. Somebody please read this book!)

Edited because of my complete inability to communicate effectively.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

Jack the Bodiless · 08-21-2002, 08:22 AM

There is a somewhat related thread: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000554" target="_blank">Why don't "The Big Questions" apply to God?</a>

Doesn't MrDarwin's argument qualify as "inductive reasoning", which WJ apparently regards as superior? "Reasoning from parts to the whole".

There is random suffering in the world. Therefore the whole is uncontrolled, or controlled by an arbitrary and indifferent God.

As Richard Dawkins put it:

Quote:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

Jack the Bodiless · 08-21-2002, 08:33 AM

Quote:

So in complaining about pain, you would have to come up with a better way of acheiving God's goals than the ones we have now. You can say all you want that an omnimax God could have come up with a better way, but that is only if this way is indeed not the best way. All you have to do to prove that this is not the case, and that suffering is not a necessary part of freedom, is just to come up with one scenario that is better given the Christian God's goals. Otherwise, we have no reason to believe that this way, however inconvienent to us, is not the best way.

That is easily done.

A world identical to this one, but without the Ebola virus.

A world identical to this one, but all cancers are benign and operable.

A world identical to this one, but with a Bible that's the actual "Word of God" and doesn't contradict itself, or contradict observed reality.

A world in which Biblical genocides, even if somehow absolutely necessary for some incomprehensible reason, are hidden, to avoid giving the precedent that religious genocide is OK.

A world identical to this one, but in which nuclear fusion reactors actually work right now.

A world identical to this one, but in which Siamese twins do not occur.

A world identical to this one, but in which kidney stones are less painful.

I could go on, and on, and on...

Even ONE trivial change for the better would be preferable to this world. Therefore this is not the best of all possible worlds.

yahwehyadayada · 08-21-2002, 08:52 AM

Reading WJ's posts reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Mr. Spock says, "Everything I say is a lie. Listen carefully. I'm lying."

luvluv · 08-21-2002, 08:58 AM

Well, Jack, again we have to measure the best of all possible worlds against God's goals, not what would make everything more pleasant for us.

I don't know the physics behind cancer or the ebola virus, but creating a world in which such things were impossible might entail creating a world in which other organisms are impossible or the laws of physics and chemistry are different. I believe an ongoing, predictable intrusion into the laws of nature would constitute not simply proof of God's existence but proof of his power, and proofs of his power limit the ability of people to freely choose. And, again, I'm not sure how eliminating the possibility of cancer and ebola would elimante the possibility of other things. The same objections hold for kidney stones and Siamese twins. (C.S. Lewis explains this a lot better than me, but here goes...) The existence of free willed beings pre-necessitates the existence of an objective, unbiased, external reality. If the external reality is unbiased and objective, it will not reconform itself for our convienence. In an objetive external reality, it is possible for genes and chromosomes to get mixed up and for that to lead to adverse consequences. If reality and the freedom to choose are to have meaning, God cannot constantly intervene to correct every bad consequence. If this were the case, our freedoms would be meaningless.

In short, you cannot really posit that the world is "just like it is" with one benevolent (or seemingly benevolent) alteration. The world as it is would produce the world as it is , ebola, cancer and all, without God directly intervening by an alteration of the laws of chemistry or physics. What you are essentially asking for is interruptions into the laws of nature as they are, I am asking you for a different law of nature that could achieve God's goals. If one of his goals is to avoid direct intervention as much as possible (in order to get the maximum amount of freedom into every choice) then just positing circumstances for God to intervene aren't going to cut it.

As for Biblical contradictions, I think that there is a lot of human free choice involved in what is in the Bible and what people choose to believe about the Bible. If what you are asking for is a book which is so perfect that it admits no logical possibility of being disbellieved in, I don't think that is possible. Belief is a choice, it's part of free will, and there is no such thing as a book that is so internally consistent that someone will not choose to disbelieve it. Also, internal consistency does not in anyway prove veracity. Most fictional novels are internally consistent. As far as consistent with the observed world, I think the Bible is not a science text book. It is consistent, ethically and in it's portrayal of human nature, with the externally observed world. It's purpose is not to explain nature but to illuminate human nature. I think it does what it is set out to do quite admirably.

More later on why I think the "less pain" argument fails to establish a reasonable defense for the problem of evil.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

Hobbs · 08-21-2002, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
Hey McDarwin I'll try my hand at your original question.

Is your problem with the fact of predation or with the amount of suffering it entails?

Obviously, from a biological standpoint predation is a good thing. ...

Your explanation is a very good and convincing account of how something like godless evolution could produce what we find. But why would an omnimax God have to or want to create a world like this? Why have predators and prey in the first place? Why have the need to experience pain in the first place? Why couldn't God have made other laws of nature?

Hobbs · 08-21-2002, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
I believe an ongoing, predictable intrusion into the laws of nature would constitute not simply proof of God's existence but proof of his power, and proofs of his power limit the ability of people to freely choose.

I fail to see how more and accurate knowledge of reality would lead to less free choice? The more I accurately know about reality and how it works, the more real choice I have: I can make choices that I can more effectively carry out. If God exists but I don't know it, then I am unaware of some real options that exist for me, so I'm unable to make some choices that I could make if I knew otherwise.

luvluv · 08-21-2002, 09:52 AM

How'd I know you were going to ask those two questions?

Seriously, I thought I answered them a little in my first post. God's purpose in creating life was not to avoid suffering, there is an end in mind and the means are constructed towards that end, not towards an avoidance of suffering. That's why the rules of nature are the way they are and not some other way.

As to your other objection, lets say someone wanted to find out whether you really like drive a dunebuggy illegally on the highway or not. If a person wanted to observe that, he could simply give you a dunebuggy on a relatively unobserved road and watch your behavior. On the other hand, lets assume this person gave you that dunebuggy and arranged for a police officer to follow you around. In the case where the police officer was following, would we have any real idea whether or not the dunebuggy driver really liked to drive on the road? Or would he simply be following the rules because he knew he was being watched by someone with the power to enforce consequences. The dunebuggy driver would obey the rules not because he wanted to, but because he wanted to avoid punishment. A free relationship with God cannot be started simply from the desire to avoid punishment. If God's existence and His power were objectively known and in constant observance, it would prevent a free decision about him from being made.

Hobbs · 08-21-2002, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
If God's existence and His power were objectively known and in constant observance, it would prevent a free decision about him from being made.

If God's existence is not known, then that would also prevent a free decision about him from being made. Also, if the rules are not known to be the actual rules, no decision can be made about whether to follow them. Supppose the driver in your example didn't know what constituted speeding, or that there were any such thing as a rule against speeding? Could he be said to have chosen to break the rule against going over a certain speed? Besides, God is allegedly supposed to know our hearts; if so, he should know whether I am following the rules because I want to or because I don't want to be punished for doing what I'd rather be doing.

Hobbs · 08-21-2002, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
God's purpose in creating life was not to avoid suffering, there is an end in mind and the means are constructed towards that end, not towards an avoidance of suffering.

If his end does not include avoiding suffering, then I would have to disagree that he has chosen the best end or the best set of ends. I think that including avoidance of suffering in his ends would make his ends better. If I am wrong, he is free to try to convince me otherwise.

08-21-2002, 08:21 AM	#71
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Hey McDarwin I'll try my hand at your original question. Is your problem with the fact of predation or with the amount of suffering it entails? Obviously, from a biological standpoint predation is a good thing. If one were to do away with predation, one would have to do away with procreation where only finite resources are available. Overpopulation of a species in an area of limited resources can have some disastrous consequences for the eco-system at hand. Now, if your argument is with the suffering inherent in predatory acts, I might remind you that the capacity for experiencing suffering is, as it is given, a good thing. Humans and other animals have pain sensors as a defense mechanism. Let us remember that probably 999 times out of a 1000 our ability to perceive pain, and to use that pain as a reminder to avoid it's consequences, usually saves us from more adverse consequences than the pain itself. Pain is simply a warning signal that allows us to avoid destruction. It is better to feel that a fire is hot and pull your hands from the flames than to let your hand be consumed totally in the flames. Thus, the capacity to feel pain is a benevolent attribute. The fact that pain can simply make an unavoidable death or destruction more unpleasant has to be weighed against all the death and destruction that is avoided by the capacity to sense and avoid pain. In other words, you are viewing pain and suffering as if it were designed as an end, when in reality it was designed as a means for survival. There are obviously times when animals experience a painful death, but there ability to percieve pain, and their natural tendency to remember and avoid pain, probably extended their existence to a far greater degree than if they had never experienced any pain at all. In that sense, pain is a good thing. Suffering exists to let us know that there is a problem and to give us the impetus to remedy that problem if we can. Suffering is not an end unto itself, it is a means to avoid destruction. Now, from here I'm sure we'll get into the discussion about how none of these excuses have any merit when discussing an omnimax God who could have created a world where none of this was necessary. I would say that while God is indeed omnimax, his creativity was proscribed by his ends. That is to say, paraphrasing C.S. Lewis, how could an omiscient God fail to know the best way to bring his plans about, and how could an omnipotent God fail to execute them. Christian theists proclaim that given God's goals, the current arrangement of life is the best form possible for that goal, and it is logically impossible for even Omniscience to come up with a better way of doing something than the best way. So, I think the problem of suffering to be a real problem to belief in God, an atheist needs to describe a scenario by which God could have better attained his goals than the way in which they are being pursued presently. I would describe God's primary goal (with us at least) as being the creation of free-willed sons and daughters who serve him purely because they want to based on what's known about his character, not because of any knowledge about his power. I think CS Lewis explained very well in the first couple of chapters of his book "The Problem of Pain" how any form of life with the possibility of freedom admits the possibility of pain in some form from the outset. ( Briefly: to be able to choose, if choice is to have meaning, is to admit the possibility of choosing incorrectly, and the person who chooses incorrectly will suffer more than the one who chooses correctly.) So in complaining about pain, you would have to come up with a better way of acheiving God's goals than the ones we have now. You can say all you want that an omnimax God could have come up with a better way, but that is only if this way is indeed not the best way. All you have to do to prove that this is not the case, and that suffering is not a necessary part of freedom, is just to come up with one scenario that is better given the Christian God's goals. Otherwise, we have no reason to believe that this way, however inconvienent to us, is not the best way. PS: (I really wish at least one of you guys on this site would read the first 50 pages of CS Lewis's The Problem of Pain. I've been on about it since my first post and I still haven't found anybody whose read it. It's at Barnes and Nobles for like 8 bucks people! I know you guys have told me that C.S. Lewis is not the greatest Christian thinker, but I've read a lot of the guys you folks have recommended [William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler and I'm trying to get my hands on some Plantinga] but I still have not read a better theodicy than that in the Problem of Pain [at least that of the first few chapters, the rest of it gets a little nutty]. Somebody please read this book!) Edited because of my complete inability to communicate effectively. [ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

08-21-2002, 08:58 AM	#75
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Well, Jack, again we have to measure the best of all possible worlds against God's goals, not what would make everything more pleasant for us. I don't know the physics behind cancer or the ebola virus, but creating a world in which such things were impossible might entail creating a world in which other organisms are impossible or the laws of physics and chemistry are different. I believe an ongoing, predictable intrusion into the laws of nature would constitute not simply proof of God's existence but proof of his power, and proofs of his power limit the ability of people to freely choose. And, again, I'm not sure how eliminating the possibility of cancer and ebola would elimante the possibility of other things. The same objections hold for kidney stones and Siamese twins. (C.S. Lewis explains this a lot better than me, but here goes...) The existence of free willed beings pre-necessitates the existence of an objective, unbiased, external reality. If the external reality is unbiased and objective, it will not reconform itself for our convienence. In an objetive external reality, it is possible for genes and chromosomes to get mixed up and for that to lead to adverse consequences. If reality and the freedom to choose are to have meaning, God cannot constantly intervene to correct every bad consequence. If this were the case, our freedoms would be meaningless. In short, you cannot really posit that the world is "just like it is" with one benevolent (or seemingly benevolent) alteration. The world as it is would produce the world as it is , ebola, cancer and all, without God directly intervening by an alteration of the laws of chemistry or physics. What you are essentially asking for is interruptions into the laws of nature as they are, I am asking you for a different law of nature that could achieve God's goals. If one of his goals is to avoid direct intervention as much as possible (in order to get the maximum amount of freedom into every choice) then just positing circumstances for God to intervene aren't going to cut it. As for Biblical contradictions, I think that there is a lot of human free choice involved in what is in the Bible and what people choose to believe about the Bible. If what you are asking for is a book which is so perfect that it admits no logical possibility of being disbellieved in, I don't think that is possible. Belief is a choice, it's part of free will, and there is no such thing as a book that is so internally consistent that someone will not choose to disbelieve it. Also, internal consistency does not in anyway prove veracity. Most fictional novels are internally consistent. As far as consistent with the observed world, I think the Bible is not a science text book. It is consistent, ethically and in it's portrayal of human nature, with the externally observed world. It's purpose is not to explain nature but to illuminate human nature. I think it does what it is set out to do quite admirably. More later on why I think the "less pain" argument fails to establish a reasonable defense for the problem of evil. [ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-21-2002, 08:52 AM	#74
yahwehyadayada Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: WI Posts: 290	Reading WJ's posts reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Mr. Spock says, "Everything I say is a lie. Listen carefully. I'm lying."

08-21-2002, 09:52 AM	#78
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	How'd I know you were going to ask those two questions? Seriously, I thought I answered them a little in my first post. God's purpose in creating life was not to avoid suffering, there is an end in mind and the means are constructed towards that end, not towards an avoidance of suffering. That's why the rules of nature are the way they are and not some other way. As to your other objection, lets say someone wanted to find out whether you really like drive a dunebuggy illegally on the highway or not. If a person wanted to observe that, he could simply give you a dunebuggy on a relatively unobserved road and watch your behavior. On the other hand, lets assume this person gave you that dunebuggy and arranged for a police officer to follow you around. In the case where the police officer was following, would we have any real idea whether or not the dunebuggy driver really liked to drive on the road? Or would he simply be following the rules because he knew he was being watched by someone with the power to enforce consequences. The dunebuggy driver would obey the rules not because he wanted to, but because he wanted to avoid punishment. A free relationship with God cannot be started simply from the desire to avoid punishment. If God's existence and His power were objectively known and in constant observance, it would prevent a free decision about him from being made.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.