Mike Gallagher, God bless him, says something in a promo for his show that I profoundly disagree with.
In an ideological double-reverse back flip, he joins the liberal howls of protest at Pastor Rick Warren's giving the invocation at President Obama's inauguration. His point seems to be that Pastor Warren is besmirching Christianity by giving aid and comfort to the pro-abortion enemy.
The Apostle Paul preached to the Athenians, and Pastor Rick will preach to the Democrats.
When Mike asks "Why would Rick Warren participate in this inauguration?" I couldn't help but recall Matthew 9:11, when the Pharisees asked the disciples why Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. In the next verse, Our Lord answers for himself: "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."
Pastor Rick Warren is following The Savior's entreaty to go and spread The Gospel wherever he can. Catholic religious have been doing this since the founding of the church. You can find them spreading the good news and making trouble all over the earth and all across the political spectrum, and all in the service of Jesus.
Conservatives and the GOP can learn a lesson from Pastor Rick and all others who evangelize outside their comfort zone. It's how you gain converts, whether your purpose is religious or ideological. I hate to use this example, but Howard Dean brought success to the Democratic party by doing the same. Liberals roundly criticized him when he embarked upon his 50 state strategy, but he stuck to it and, unfortunately for conservatives, it bore fruit.
This just illustrates what my friend's now-departed Dad, the Reverend Don, used to tell us kids. He would solemnly intone with complete conviction that there is no problem on earth that cannot be solved by consulting The Bible. This good man was right. Jesus shows us how to win friends and influence people in a completely unselfish way.
Preaching to the converted is fun, and even necessary, but the real challenge, and the greatest reward, is to sow and harvest among the dubious and hostile.
66 comments:
You asked for it:
The problem of human suffering and the evil done unto humans at the hands of other humans and completely natural causes alike are cause for doubting a wholly omnipotent and benevolent diety.
However, free will, and other unsubstantiated doctrines, such as redemption, eternal justice, original sin, (some of which are admittedly not in the bible at all) etc... help to account for this perceived contradiction (between a completely good and powerful god, and evil on earth). One is still left skeptical as to whether Christianity had these doctrines in scripture to start with, or came up with them later on to deal with the contradictions between reality and the Christian belief in god.
That aside, the problem of animal suffering has not been addressed in the slightest. Descartes addressed the problem of unfree (that is, animals are not said to have free will by anybody including Christians) and needlessly suffering creatures created by a god of perfect benevolence and omnipotence by assuming that ANIMALS CANNOT FEEL PAIN! He assumed that we anthropomorphized/projected the feelings of pain we felt as humans unto animals, but that it was but illusary. Descartes was known to have often taken stray dogs and cats off the streets, nailed them to boards, and proceeded to open their chests, and abdominal areas in order to try and get some observational data as to whether blood ran from the heart to the body or from the body to the heart.
He was unsuccessful. An even more astonishing fact is that he would think that animals were so alike humans in terms of their circulatory systems, and yet so far apart in their ability to feel. Nietzsche says that "faith is the will to avoid knowing what is true".
Thomas Hobbes, [atheistic (though he dare not reveal it at the time at pain of burning to death) political philosopher] wrote letters urging that Descartes stop what he was doing and show some compassion to the poor helpless animals. Descartes replied by calling Hobbes the equivalent of silly and childish for believing that animals actually felt pain.
My question to you is, how will god go about redeeming animal suffering, and why does it occur in the first place? Is it another one of his tests of faith, because if I see peter, or whoever else I am supposed to be greeted by when I arrive to heaven's gate and have to explain my atheism... I'll just point down to the earth, and ask him if he could close up on a scene of a fox caught in a trap forced to bite its own leg off.
If you want to eliminate humans from the equation entirely, what about all the suffering animals endured before god even made humans? I can't remember if he had created us before or after animals, but natural evidence strongly suggests the latter. If so, why would he allow, unfree animals the mere ability to feel pain, nevertheless the extent of pain they are FORCED (again, if they do not have free will, they do not have a say in the matter) to endure?
Also, how will redemption occur if animals are not allowed into heaven? Was Descartes right? If he saw no other way around explaining animal suffering, do you really think you will be able to?
I would caution you coming up with very simple and/or poorly thought out, quick answers. Descartes was already an accomplished scholar and philosopher when he came up with his.
Is it an article of faith? If so, why did Kant, Descartes, Aquinas, etc... not think that answer would do?
http://reaching-oblivion.blogspot.com/
I think its a safe bet to say events like this will earn liberalism a net gain of Christian sympathy toward global warming and abortion rights. So the question really is who is evangelising to who.
Apparently the effects of letting your yays and nays mean MAYBE is just too comforting to pass up for those who think public discourse is the actual problem. Poor public discourse is merely a symptom of the problem.
Somebody call me when Christians grow a pair and decide to stand their ground. Otherwise i'll save this post so i can cut and paste words like polygamy and beastiality into it in a few years.
SteveH
Pragmatist. I haven't put as much thought into animals as you have. I believe they have no souls, but that does not mean we can treat them cruelly. I believe they are on this earth to serve man by being beasts of burden and by being tasty food.
The Bible has very little "doctrine" per se. It is the inerrant word of God, and doctrine grew up around it as man struggled to understand that word and reconcile it with the world around him.
SteveH: I never thought about it that way... The pagans sway the missionaries, who end up going native. Hmmm....
I think implicit in what you are saying is that this is already happening. Just look at all the oxymorons who claim they are antiabortion but vote for a pro abortion candidate.
Beliefnet is another symptom. It espouses a squishy belief in everything, which is really a belief in nothing.
I don't know. I just think people should stand up for what they believe in. Sometimes it works beautifully (Christ founding Christianity), and sometimes it falls flat (Paul preaching to the Athenians). But you gotta try.
You haven't answered the problem of animal suffering at all. You've only addressed your own personal feelings towards animals which I agree with you on, but the difference is that I don't believe in an omnipotent and entirely benevolent god.
I know you don't believe animals have souls; that doesn't excuse god from creating creatures without free will just to suffer on the earth and eventually die.
This is a serious problem for Christianity (or an all-good, all-powerful god) and I think you know it. There really isn't an 'answer' to it. I'm sure if you put your avoid-thinking cap on you'll find some bs to throw at me.
http://reaching-oblivion.blogspot.com/
A serious problem for Christianity? I'm pretty well read in the Church thinkers and I can tell you that the question of whether fluffy will go to heaven or not rarely comes up.
Here's a quick riff on St Anselm's ontological argument for you: If God is the final standard of good and bad, then whatever he is or does is good.
That's hardly an answer. It's a cheap shot at a serious issue, and philosophically degrading.
Anselm's first premise is that god exists. This is the very premise that is under question. Also, if nailing cats and dogs to boards, ripping their bodies open until they bleed to death is gods idea of good, that really is some benevolent diety.
Again "Faith is the will to avoid knowing what is true" -- Nietzsche. Not answering my criticism or failing to take it seriously is evidence evidence of this.
Also, it's not a question of whether animals have souls or not (you have serious reading comprehension issues). The question is whether an all-good god would allow for the suffering of helpless creatures (without free will, and without a chance for redemption).
His easy way out would have been to either not create animals at all, or dampen their ability to feel pain signfiicantly. He did neither.
That you don't think this is serious shows what you know of logic and critical thinking. Christian theologians aren't the standard of logic and are not best fit to find criticisms against Christianity.
http://reaching-oblivion.blogspot.com/
Actually, giving them souls would have solved this problem as well. You're reading was correct.
The thing is that there are a lot of ways god could have avoided this criticism. He doesn't even seem to be trying to reveal himself.
I wonder why Christians aren't winning converts anymore?
""I'll just point down to the earth, and ask him if he could close up on a scene of a fox caught in a trap forced to bite its own leg off.""
Ever wonder how cruel it would be to force non suffering on animals? I mean what would a fox exactly be like if he lived in a riskless, utopian paradise? Just look at our zoos and lets all foolishly pretend we know better than God.
I don't know better than god. That would be an absurd claim. God does not exist. I know better than you.
What you've quoted me as saying is hypothetical. I can't imagine ever being in that situation, and I can't think of a single reason that would sway me to think otherwise.
Again, "Faith is the will to avoid knowing what is true" -- Nietzsche. Skepticism is the will to avoid knowing what is false.
I never once advocated zoos, vegetarianism, humane treatment of animals, animals rights, or any combination of any of these.
Don't read into what I write. My original post was not about advocating for ending animals suffering. It was to argue against the existence of god from evil done unto animals.
If you want to defend god creating the world as he did, you'll have to do better than "his ways are higher than ours" or any nonsense like that.
You may in fact be right. The problem is that there is no 'reason' to believe that you are right.
Again, "faith is the will to avoid knowing what is true"; skepticism is the will to avoid knowing is false.
I wonder why Christians aren't winning converts anymore?
False statement. Only in Europe could this perhaps be true, but even there God is making a comeback as the continent turns to Islam.
"Suffering" is a man-made concept with a psychological component, as is pain to a lesser degree. Indeed, there are some who are almost impervious to pain or even enjoy it.
How do you know a fox is "suffering" when he chews off his foot to get out of a trap? You are projecting your psychology onto a creature.
So to project a human understanding upon an animal is disneyesque in its naivete.
Having said that, I am for killing animals as quickly and cleanly as possible.
Canadian: BTW, you missed the point of this article, which is that if you want to gain converts to your side you've got to get out of your comfort zone and go preach in "enemy territory."
I'm surprised you didn't get that.
I did get that about your post. Is this not "enemy territory" for me? as you put it.
Aside from that, we have quite a good grasp of animal suffering. It is to a different extent, derived by different stimuli, etc... but it is suffering nonetheless. There is nothing naive, or in french, 'naivete' about that. It is disengenuous, and willfully ignorant to say otherwise. I know the fox feel pain because I'm not an idiot. You're also making the same argument Descartes made; I would caution you or anyone else reading this to avoid accepting such a perversion of reason.
Christianity is on its knees. The only places that are turning converts are the poorest, most depraved and uneducated parts of the world (where Christianity has always thrived). Even America's youth are far more likely to be non-religious than they had been in the past. The age category of 19-29 is one of the least religious segments of the American population. This suggest that the future is not with jesus or any other false idol.
But that's aside from my main point. How do you account for an all-good and all-powerful god allowing for animals (without chance for redemption or free will) to suffer?
If humans brought it on to the world, surely that would only be reason enough for suffering to affect humans.
You've made no progress in rebuking my argument. You've only restated what I had already conceded, and that is that only through denying that animals feel any pain at all can this problem be solved. That is what's called a reductio ad absurdum argument. The only way to refute it is to reduce your side to an absurd claim about reality.
I know that animals suffer because I have a dog. I don't have to be in his body to understand that he feels pain. Just as I don't have to be in another humans body to know that they feel pain.
There is a lot we can tell about animals solely from their behaviour. Of course, this is all a side point since neurological science has shown that animals suffer from looking at their brains.
Also, if you don't 'know' (you're falsely equating a state of knowledge with a state of certainty) that animals feel pain, why do you want them put down so quickly? Why not cut a cows tail off and wait for it to bleed to death?
This is enemy territory for you, figuratively and ideologically speaking :), but you are always welcome here. Thank you for showing up. It's boring when everybody agrees on everything.
Christianity is on it's knees. That's a good one!
You still have not made your point that animals suffer. You are imposing a human subjective construct upon animals.
I do know animals feel pain, so why prolong it?
Okay, lets get back to the main issue here. Animals either do or do not suffer/feel pain. That you "know animals feel pain" is exactly the issue. That means that you do not agree with Descartes, and agree with, I'm guessing, 99%+ of the all people above the age of 4 in that you believe that animals are capable of real (not constructed by humans) suffering. That it is not the same as human suffering or that it is to a lesser extent, etc... is not the issue.
Animals feel pain. God created animals. God did not however create a method of redemption, nor free will like he has with us to account for our suffering. This is a problem since god is said to be both omnipotent and purely benevolent. If god actually has these qualities Christianity ascribes to him, then why are animals allowed to suffer at all?
Aha! Now you conflate suffering and pain. No redefining terms in the middle of a debate.
Redemption is not a response to pain or suffering and free will is no answer to it either. Read the book of Job, or the story of Christ for that matter.
You're in over your head.
If an animal feels pain it doesn't suffer? They're synonomous terms (e.g. "I'm in pain", "I'm suffering"). Pain is a specific type of suffering, but that doesn't mean that pain is not also suffering. Also, this has very little to do with the crux of my argument.
If neither redemption nor free will are answers to human suffering (which I never thought were. I was merely humouring you.). Then, what exactly are you saying? You don't have any answer at all? God is dead? Have we killed him?
You throw an argument for god at me and in no longer than three paragraphs, it's over and done with. We've spent, 2, 3 days on this and you still haven't given me a response worth remembering.
"Faith is the will to avoid knowing what is true" -- Nietzsche
If this dialogue isn't an example of that, I don't know what is. I mean, I CANNOT change your mind. It's impossible. Until your strength towards the antithesis to life is weakened, I don't know what I can possibly do.
Pain and suffering are not synonymous. Your premise is eroding.
One problem with your quote: "God is Dead" is not a true statement. You cannot prove it. Indeed, saying God is Dead affirms the existence of God.
I never set out to prove anything about God. This post is about carrying your message to the enemy camp, which I must admit you do quite admirably.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/suffering
According to this, pain is the definition of suffering.
Pain is a neurological stimulus, suffering is a mental state.
Okay then, animals only feel pain. They do not suffer. My point still stands, even if I concede that.
'Evil' is what god is allowing. Either of pain, suffering, anguish, despair, depression, etc... are considered evil.
Pain is evil? Pain is considered evil? By whom?
Women experience pain in childbirth, is that evil?
Look, I'm talking in Christian terms. This is all very nutty to me. I feel like I'm reasoning with children.
But, yes, a good god that would allow women to experience pain is evil; corollary, a good god that would allow animals to experience pain is evil. You can believe that whatever he does is good, but again, that would take a lot of 'faith'. "Faith is the will to avoid knowing what is true" -- Nietzsche.
I wouldn't even use the term evil if I knew I wasn't discussing this with Christians. I'd like to move well beyond good and/versus evil.
Your Christian terms sicken me almost as much as your Christian reasoning.
You need to stick to Nietzsche. You're in way over your head when you try to discuss religion. Thomas Aquinas, Emmanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, John Locke, etc are beyond you.
But of course, all believers, including these great thinkers and others, are all stupid. Everybody's stupid except you. You should write a book and educate us all.
For a philosopher, you are very close minded.
I can appreciate the French greats Rousseau, Voltaire and Camus although I disagree with them on many issues.
Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Dewey, Rorty, Wittgenstein, Russell, Chomsky, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Smith, Emerson, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Marx, Zizek, Critchley, Dennett, etc... Yah, none of them are great thinkers. Only Christian 'philosophers' (I threat to even call them that) are great thinkers.
I appreciate Locke as well. Descartes, Kant and Aquinas I have no time for. I explained with Descartes' Christianity was so horrific; would you like me to show you with the other three you mentioned?
Show me a flaw in Nietzsche's reasoning, or Russell's reasoning. Despite the fact that these men a diametrically opposed in terms of philosophy, they are both atheists of the strongest sort.
Since modern times, basically all the great philosophers have been atheists (all the mediocre philosophers as well actually). This is especially true in America. Plantiga and the rest of them are not considered great philosophers outside of your circle of friends.
But, you haven't even answered my argument yet, and already you're telling me I'm over my head? If anyone is over their head, it's you my friends.
Name me a single criticism of Christianity by Nietzsche and refute it. In fact, make that your next blog post. Lets see how wise you really are.
Oh, I forgot, Voltaire, Camus, Sartre, Hesse, Melville,... I could go on.
Canadian Pragmatist~
Good Lord man, how do you get that head of yours through the door? A few flaws in your arguments:
1. You assume that because someone believes, you are smarter than they are. Believe me, as there are atheists and believers smarter than me, there are atheists and believers smarter than you... you make the fatal flaw of equating intelligence with knowledge, don't be so arrogant. I'd be willing to bet that Rene Descartes, based on his contributions to mankind, was more intelligent than you. Notice, I did not say better educated.
2. You assume sentience to be a binary state.
3. You assume pain and the conditional response to avoid it to be an undesireable state, when it is a biological function designed to prevent damage, or the reoccurence thereof.
4. You assume, quite wrongly, that the existence of pain and suffering in animals or humans is a reflection on the nature of God, and from your perspective, your standards, and your moral and ethical code, judge based upon it.
5. Free will is unsubstaniated? Who's your puppet master then? I hardly believe you are attempting to argue for a deterministic philosophy. You are simply throwing terminology around in a bluster hoping you hit paydirt in your argument, or to simply make yourself appear better credentialed. The deterministic/indeterministic argument is irrelevant to your argument, it can be made both ways.
6. Your argument is circular. You presume that the purpose of an "omnipotent and benevolent deity" is to prevent suffering and pain, and then argue the existence of pain and suffering as proof that he does not exist. While not omnipotent, I would generally consider myself benevolent, however if I am hiking in the woods and observe a fox devouring a still kicking rabbit I do not intervene in the natural order of things in order to rescue the rabbit because it is suffering.
7. Another flaw in your argument stems back to my first point concerning your arrogance... you presume to know the mind of God, and in such a presumption to judge him, based upon your narrow perspective. As to the gratuitous or incidental infliction of pain, you make the very large assumption that because it occurs and no apparent retribution occurs, that there is no judgement. What are you looking for as a sign from God? Rene Descartes getting struck by lightning?
8. You presume that God needs to redeem animal suffering, in essence you are judging God. Animal suffering exists, God should not allow suffering, ergo God needs to redeem himself.
In essence you are using the argument that because God is not what you believe he should be, he therefore does not exist. You are so wrapped up in your own "omnipotence" that you can not permit the existence of God within your own mind, because that would mean that you don't know everything and have all the answers, that you don't see the big picture, and are in fact incapable of seeing the big picture. The existence of God is to great a challenge you your belief system.
In turn, I have an intellectual challenge for you, consider it intellectual calisthenics: If required, how would you reconcile the existence of God to your belief system? This answer to this could range from an evil God to an indifferent God, or any other mechanism that you believe could reconcile the existence of god to the existence of pain and suffering.
Cheers!
~Finntann~
None of those are flaws:
1. I never assumed that. Of course Descartes was smarter, wiser and more knowledgable than me. That has nothing to do with my arugment. I was simply refuting Silverfiddle saying I was over my head. However, Nietzsche was wiser than Descartes, and so were Emerson, Dewey, Hobbes, etc... at least when it came to the question of god. Descartes made contributions to almost every field of study, but his philosophy isn't taken very seriously these days.
2. I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm guessing it has nothing to do with my arguement.
3. I know the biological function of pain. That has nothing to do with god. God made biology. He could have changed it and could still change it now. He could take the fox out of the trap. You're only thinking about the rare time when a human could intervene and save an animal. What about the 99% of the time when that's not going to happen?
4. The pain and suffering of animals is a reflection on god because animals don't have free will and god created them.
5. I don't believe in free will. I believe that I can do as I will, but that that will is not free. All the evidence in the physical world says that I'm right. I could go over it with you, but that'll have to wait until we settle this.
6. My argument is not circular it is impenetrable. God is all good and all powerful by defintion (unless you're not Christian). Of course you could intervene to help an animal in distress?! However, that has nothing to do with my argument!
7. I don't presume to know the mind of god (especially because I don't believe god exists); based upon our standards of logic and reason, we cannot make sense of an all-good and all-powerful god that would allow evil. Such a god could still exists; it's simply extremely unlikely. I wouldn't waste my life on my knees to something that is almost certainly a figment of my imagination. Again, "faith is the will to avoid knowing what is true" -- Nietzsche.
8. The god of Jefferson, Paine, Lincoln, Spinoza, Einstein, etc... The god that created the universe, but took off after that (the deistic god).
Why don't you take up one of my challenges and complete it successfully before you offer me any more of yours?
Why don't you take one of Russell's arguments and try and refute it? Freud...?
N.B.
I don't believe in esp, free will, telepathy, aliens, god, magic, occult, parapsychology, etc...
*I'm sorry, I think Thomas Paine was actually a full-blown atheist.
Now you've gone and done it! You've brought the wrath of Finntann down upon your oversized head.
Thomas Paine was not an atheist, but you are sorry. Socrates and Plato believed in an all-powerful God.
How can I refute drivel like: "Faith is the will to avoid knowing what is true"?
If you only believe what is apprehended by your five sensed then your world is indeed a small one, which probably explains your self-inflated sense of intellect.
Plato and Scorates had very different ideas of god than you do. Also, this sort of name dropping is getting to be pointless. Why won't you actually engage in the argument?
I don't believe in telepathy, esp, etc.. either. Why is your non-sense belief any better than those.
What is faith if not the will to avoid knowing what is true? Faith being contrasted with skepticism.
No one has ever explained first cause. There is no better theory than a God or some superior being. A world this complex, with complex beings didn't just happen.
Do you believe in the Ming Dynasty, Xerxes, and the Peloponnesian war?
Can something exist beyond your senses?
I'll stop now, I hate talking to adults as if they were children...
God is not a sufficient explanation of the suppossed 'first cause'. He still needs a first cause to even be comprehensible to the human mind. You may as well say that the universe doesn't need a first cause; that it is entirely self-sufficient and non-contingent.
Something, 'could' exist beyond my senses, but nothing 'does' exist beyond my senses. Or at least, I have no evidence to suggest that anything does.
Not even three paragraphs; oops. This is the third.
Nothing exists beyond your senses? Ergo, I assume you do not believe in theoretical particles; things that exist only in the realm of theory and have not yet been successfully measured or quantified.
Interesting that you do not believe in ESP or Telepathy. I am not an advocate of either, yet would not be so bold as to completely and utterly discount them out of hand, and no I don't go to psychics or practice astrology. Yet...there is much that we do not understand, such as quantum connectivity...whereas particle pairs maintain opposite orientations despite the apparent lack of any method of communication between them and in apparent violation of the laws of physics as we know them... obviously we don't know them well enough.
Simply because you state something to be false does not make it so, there are plenty of things in this universe that do not make any sense to us, yet are obviously true.
I particularly find the relationship between quantum physics and Zen philosophy to be very entertaining...in that we are discovering things today that were propounded by the Buddha 2500 years ago.
Your argument is not impenetrable, it is specious... based on the assumption that God has to act to end suffering, or that what you perceive as pain and suffering is necessarily bad. Try another approach, I will not grant you the point that God, being benevolent, must end all suffering, or that the suffering of one animal in the jaws of another is pointless, or that even if pointless is antithetical to the existence of a benevolent God, in whose plan animals may simply be irrelevant, mere living things.
Canadian said: "He still needs a first cause to even be comprehensible to the human mind."
I've found a key in your mental stumbling... So your criterion for a God is that he must be comprehensible to you? No wonder you're an atheist.
God's ways are inscrutable so you criticize him. If he were completely open, transparent and easily understood I'm sure you would criticize him for being easier to understand than Nietzsche, and therefore a petty god not worth worshiping.
You've just set up a framework wherein no god may fit.
I think the horse is dead (but did it suffer and feel pain???)
God is incomprehensible and not necessary as a cause, a mover, a creator, etc... You can still believe in him, but for the same reasons I don't believe in ghosts, esp, etc... I'm not going to believe in something like god whose mere existence is completely superfluous, incomprehensible and degrading to human life.
Even if I refute every proof, you could still say, maybe tomarrow someone will come up with a new, bettwe proof. Reason and logic have no place in a god debate.
The last thing you have to ask yourself is: Is it good for my life and the lives of those around me to degrade this world by believing in another, 'better' world to which death is a portal.
The 'truth' of this, as you've already admitted is not decipherable through human reason. I would also contend that such a belief is bad for life. Believing that life can and should eventually be transcended for something 'other' something less like life is just demeaning. This belief is a means to bespatter this life on this world.
You must understand thought, that the nature of unscientific belief is such that they are irrefutable. They're also unreasonable, illogical and stupid, but like early freudian psychotherapy, every supposed problem of inconsistency can be glazed over.
Let us take your answer to St. Peter on why you are an atheist.
You point to the fox, caught in a trap, chewing it's own leg off. This is your 'proof' to St. Peter that god does not exist.
Your argument is known as the Epicurean Paradox, or problem of evil.
1. God is omnipotent and benevolent
2. An omnipotent and benevolent god would not permit 'pain and suffering'
3. 'Pain and suffering' exist
4. Ergo, an omnipotent and benevolent god does not exist.
Let us take the example of your poor little fox.
First we need to define your terms:
Pain: An unpleasant physical sensory experience.
But what is suffering? It must be more than pain, else why would we refer to "pain and suffering"? It would be redundant. No one would say "She went through a lot of pain and pain before she died".
Suffering must therefore extend beyond the mere physical sensation of pain. Can someone in pain not be suffering? Can someone be suffering without pain? So, what is suffering?
In the same circumstance a human, in addition to feeling physical pain, would be cognizant of all of the repercussions of the act. Of the future inability to walk, of the impact on his life and livelihood, and so on.
Does the fox feel pain? Yes
Does the fox suffer? No
Why do I say the fox does not suffer? Because the fox is not cognizant of the implications of it's act. The fox does not forsee it's future reduced mobility. The fox does not forsee it's future hunger due to it's reduced mobility. The fox can not even see the looming possibility of it's own demise. The fox only feels pain. Ergo, the fox does not suffer.
You have already granted me the boon of "pain is a biological mechanism". Why therefore would god interfere with a biological mechanism he created? To reduce suffering! But we have just established that the fox, lacking the sentience of a human, does not suffer.
You look at the fox, you see the trap, you see the blood, the torn flesh, the bone. You impose on the fox your perceptions of pain (we still haven't even established that the pain is the same, but I will grant you for the sake of argument that it is). You think about the fox, you can forsee the fox chasing rabbits, the rabbits getting away. You imagine the fox hungry. You think about the trap, how dirty it is, bacteria... you imagine the fox getting blood poisoning. The fever, the delirium, the fox collapsing against a fallen log, the fox dying. You empathize, you suffer... the fox just feels pain.
Outside of your experience, there is no suffering, just pain. So why does god allow you to suffer so, watching the poor little fox caught in the trap?
Which brings us back to St. Peter, and what he might say...
Yes, my son... I see, and what did you do to prevent such things?
Animals had existed prior to humans and suffered then as well. I will not grant that extended periods of pain for animals is not comparable to human suffering.
Also, the crux of the argument isn't on suffering and comparing it to pain. Pain is also a bad thing. God could have made a biological system that would not involve pain (at least for animals).
Evil still exists. You seem to be denying that aside from the evil humans bring onto animals they do not experience evil. They do.
How is pain evil? You are using a rather archaic definition of evil as somthing that causes discomfort or repulsion.
The modern definition of evil is: morally reprehensible, arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct. The very definition implies intent.
As there is no malicious intent in the pain of a rabbit being devoured by a fox, there is no evil. The fox is hungry, the rabbit, caught. You are anthropomorphing human qualities onto animals.
You can not demonstrably argue that the mere existence of pain is evil. Is your toothache evil? The argument is absurd, do the bacteria causing it have malicious intent? It is certainly unwelcome, it is not however, evil.
You are shifting your terminolgy to buttress your argument... this is childish. Why? Because you can't logically rebutt the argument that animals, lacking higher consciousness, can't suffer.
So what is your argument? That pain exists ergo god doesn't? That neither god nor free will exists?
You certainly give yourself room to beg off any rebuttal.
Animals exist outside of the man-god hierarchy, god does not need to intervene in animal pain because they are irrelevant. God does not intervene in human pain because of free will... but wait, humans don't have free will. You are chasing your tail, reductio ad absurdum. You claim your position is unassailable, but that is because you have no position other than in opposition.
Your original argument was god can not exist because pain exists, and then when challenged, you play an intellectual shell game with your terminology and change the structure of your house of cards as we go along. Define your position, clearly... and I will rebutt it.
You've agreed that pain is a simple biological mechanism and then attribute evil to it?
Rebutt my argument that animals do not suffer because they lack the cogniscense to do so, with simpy point at pain and going "ahhhh! Eeeeevil! Heeelllppp".
Or prove that humans lack free will? There's an intellectual challenge for you. You proffer the lack of free will as if it were accepted gospel (so to speak)... when in fact it is argued by few contemporaries.
Bah!
If evil implies intent, god is doing evil by allowing animals to feel pain.
This isn't a matter of higher levels of cognition or anthropomorphizing our feelings of suffering unto animals. Animals feel great amounts of pain. God created them so that they would be capable of this. God is evil.
You're really diminishing the significance of the pain animals feel. You and Descartes should get together and slice them open for fun.
I haven't argued against free will yet.
If evil implies intent, god is doing evil by allowing animals to feel pain.
That is an absurd statement. This ain't ancient Persia where people worship dualistic gods.
So now you are the arbiter of good and evil.
Finntann cleaned your plow, he shredded your nonsensical attacks against The Almighty. Good thing you don't philosophize for a living...
This is a merry-go-round.
Pain is not evil, pain is amoral.
Is a toothache evil?
The next thing you will be saying is god does not exist because you had a toothache.
Fini
No one has 'cleaned my plow'. Finntann, has both redefined evil to mean only things done by humans and also admitted (on my blog http://reaching-oblivion.blogspot.com/) that I have proven that god is not benevolent or else he is benevolent in a way we can't understand (which is as good as conceding that there is no thinking involved with faith. No matter what the case is, you can still believe because gods ways are higher than ours.).
Toothache vs. torture, it's all the same with this argument. The mere existence of pain that is brought on by no person but god is evil. If I break your nose for no reason would you say "it's no big deal, you're still benevolent"?
Stop trying to seem like a tough guy too. This is an argument over whether god exists; not a gun fight.
God is either not benevolent or else there would be no naturally (e.g. not by humans) occuring evil.
Also, I don't mind the idiotic 'Almighty' and assuming you've won a debate before you've even rebuked a single one of my argument, but one jesus-freak at a time please.
A tooth-ache is evil if there is no way to redeem it and it was caused exclusively by nature (ie. god). In that case, god is the perpetrator of evil.
There is no reason to think that the size, extent or nature of the pain has anything to do with this. Also, as you've suggested before, nature cannot explain this. God created nature the way he did. He could have created nature without the existence of evil. That evil exists is a sign, not proof, but a pretty big arrow in the direction of disbelief (I can't prove god doesn't exist). "God exists" is not a scientific statement. It's neither falsifiable, nor does it take on the burden of proof.
Like Kierkegaard, you can believe in god because it's such a ridiculous belief and not in spite of it being so ridiculous.
Just don't go around spreading your delusions!
Wow! Who is delusional here? One Jesus-freak at a time? I don't think I've mentioned Jesus once.
I also did not say the benevolence of god was not understandable... I said " Your argument regarding pain proves nothing other than god is not benevolent, or he is benevolent in ways that you do not understand."
I don't seem to be having a problem understanding the benevolence of god. I'd also guess that you don't understand quantum theory, that doesn't make it either unreal, or false. You seem to measure everything by your understanding of it, and your moral judgement of it.
"A tooth-ache is evil if there is no way to redeem it and it was caused exclusively by nature (ie. god). In that case, god is the perpetrator of evil."
There you go equating pain with evil again... pain, as I keep telling you is amoral. Does stubbing your toe prove the existence of evil? Or even better... if the dentist inflicts pain fixing your tooth, is he evil?
When the child reaches out to touch the candle flame, he experiences pain, he quickly withdraws his hand, preventing further damage. In that case pain is definitely good, not evil. See? Pain is amoral, neither good nor evil.
What I always find most entertaining about atheists, is how preoccupied they always seem to be with god.
Just this evening I followed a link to a news article regarding a little boy killed at a monster truck show. I glance down at the posts, and there is an atheist assaulting another poster for offering god's blessings and the benign statement that the child is in heaven. I am left wondering in whose comments is there to be found 'evil'? The one who offers comfort (real or imagined), or the one who disputes it.
Pain is not amoral if it is perpetrated by god for no good reason (you haven't given a good reason). Also, despite the fact that I cannot understand quantum theory there is science behind it. There is nothing behind the existence of god.
If you understand the benevolence of your imaginary friend, can you explain it?
As long as there is needless animal suffering I see no way of explaining such a being.
BTW
What is your positive evidence for god? So far you're only trying to overcome my objections unsuccessfully. Why don't you put your evidence forth, and I'll refute that in three paragraphs or less. I did it for Silverfiddle.
Canadian Pragmatist is futility sinking in intellectual quicksand:
"That evil exists is a sign, not proof, but a pretty big arrow in the direction of disbelief (I can't prove god doesn't exist). "God exists" is not a scientific statement. It's neither falsifiable, nor does it take on the burden of proof."
The existence of non-existence of God is not scientifically provable, which is why your little pea-shooter attacks are so boring and futile.
Speaking of big arrows, there are plenty that point to the existence of God from eye-witness accounts by true believers to Einstein's belief that the universe and all in it was ordered by some intelligent power.
Finntann did indeed leave your incoherent argument in shambles, go back and read from the beginning.
You're spitting in the wind...
I don't care what Einstein thought of the universe. Appealing to authority is not useful here.
Also, god is not a scientific claim(it's like ghosts or fairy god mothers). That's why I can't prove it wrong. That's not my fault.
I'm only appealing to thinking Christians (obviously none of you qualify). My catholic friends thinks that in genesis when god refers to a day, he must mean some other sort of time frame, like a thousand or a couple billion years to account for the existence of a barren universe for so long before man even existed on one tiny planet in which 99% of its species have died out since they cam to be. Amist, all the imploding stars and failed solar systems. Some designer.
Eye-witness accounts LOL. Give me a break. You're an idiot. But you have managed to steer the conversation away from the actual argument which neither of you have made any progress in. Cudos to you on that.
So far Finntann has admitted defeat in not so many words. He has tried to make belief in quarks equivical to a belief in god.
Quarks is science. I don't care enough to research it, but if I did, I'd problably find some evidence for them whether I understand them or not. The same doesn't apply to god.
Don't get me wrong, he may still exist. It's just an absurd leap of faith to believe it.
First of all, this is not in anyway an attempt to prove the existence of God. This is about nothing more than refuting your modus tollens argument that:
1. God is omnipotent and benevolent
2. An omnipotent and benevolent God would not permit pain and suffering
3. Pain and suffering exist
4. Ergo, God does not exist
It is a simple: If P, then Q, Not Q, therefore not P.
You offered this argument as 'your' proof that god does not exist. You have also narrowed your argument to the existence of pain and suffering outside of the realm of the human experience. I have made no assertations, I need prove nothing!
While I do believe, I do not think that I have stated that there is a god as part of my logical argument. I am not trying to prove the existence of god... I am only trying to disprove your assertation, which quite frankly is akin to nailing jello to the wall because it is constantly shifting.
Please stick to your logical argument. You may even refine it if you wish, just state the refinement in clear logical terms.
I think I have done a fairly good job of refuting it.
1. I have refuted your assertation that pain is evil. Pain is neither, it is amoral. In some circumstances it is good, in some bad. Pain has no malice, no intent, it is a biological mechanism.
2. I think that you have failed to demonstrate that animals suffer. I however, have demonstrated that pain and suffering are two separate and distinct concepts. I grant that pain may cause suffering, but have demonstrated that suffering can exist outside of pain. I have put forth a logical argument that suffering stems from self-cogniscense, from the understanding of the consequences of damage and pain, therefore only humans suffer. If you dispute this argument, offer an alternative, although if your alternative is that suffering is synonomous with pain, your argument has already collapsed, as I have demonstrated that pain is amoral.
This is not hard science, it is philosophy, ask one of your professors if philosophy is a hard science and see what answer you get. Read your own post "Philosophy: The ambiguous discipline"... before trying to bring hard science into all this. My introduction of quantum mechanics was simply to demonstrate to you that your personal understanding was not requisite to the existence of any given topic and has nothing to do with the existence of god.
The first indication that someone is losing a logical argument is when they resort to name calling and personal attacks. You have in a short span of time referred to us as Jesus freaks, non-thinking christians, idiots, you have called us delusional, and claimed that our arguments are absurd. If they are so absurd, why are you having such a difficult time with them?
We will be the first to admit that the existence of god can not be scientifically proven, that it requires 'faith'. Read Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense if you want an in depth refutation of the 'problem of evil'... he's why most contemporary philosophers no longer argue this. Or...would you consider the O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame to be another one of us "non-thinking Christians"?
Remember, your argument is:
God is omnipotent and benevolent, a omnipoetent and benevolent god would not permit pain and suffering, pain and suffering exist, ergo god does not.
Cheers!
~Finntann~
Pain is not akin to suffering, but pain is also not amoral. You defined evil as with intent. So, neither biology nor lack of intent do anything to help your cause. The intent is gods. Biology is gods.
Extended periods of pain may not be akin to suffering, but pain is still pain, and god is the one who dealt it out, so it's evil.
So much for your progress in this argument. Also, neither is religion philosophy nor science it is myth and superstition. That's why plantiga isn't taken seriously and has to teach at a catholic school.
Pain iself is not evil, but who else causes the natural pain of animals but god? Man? But man has not always been around and animals have still lived and died by being slowly devoured by other animals. Also, watering down animal pain is a really cheap tactic.
You have demonstrated that pain is amoral, just like death is amoral. The blame is with god, and the intent is gods. That's why in this case, pain is evil.
So, pain is amoral; the intent is with god which makes it evil, and whether it is pain or suffering is aside from the point completely.
If you only felt pain when I punched you in the face would I be exonerated? "It's only pain. Not suffering." Animals feel pain. It is biologically necessary for their survival that they do, but god could have made biology differently.
Pain could be non-existent. God (if he exists) purposely made animals so that they would feel pain (though he could have madethem differently). That's not an eternally benevolent diety.
Aside from which, why don't we move onto free will. i want to show to you that even the evil humans do to eachother is really gods fault completely. He created us, he is omniscient so he knows what we're going to do. The physical nature of the universe (perhaps with the exception of quarks) requires some cause for an action. So, where do human actions originate from? Is the cause entirely internal? Is it a combination of outside stimuli with ones biological make-up? Either way the will is not free.
Also, using the fact that I've called you guys idiots, etc... (which you are) as a sign that I've somehow lost an argument that you have made no progress is... that's pulling out all the stops. That's gotta be one of the last ones. I call people idiots when they are idiots all the time. Not as a last resort!
You've made an unnessary distinction between suffering and pain (which means nothing to the argument at hand) and you've made pain to seem amoral, even when god is the one who intended to make animals and humans in a way to feel pain.
And I'm losing this argument? We may as well start from the beginning again. You've made no progress. Oh, well, I guess conservatives don't like making progress.
"but pain is still pain, and god is the one who dealt it out, so it's evil."
This and other nonsensical statements come from a helpless man hopelessly tangled up in his own dense BS.
And ad hominem is the last refuge of the intellectually bereft.
You've lost the argument, but we're all idiots. Once again, I appreciate the works of many people who do not believe as I do (Camus and Voltaire, for example).
Calling everyone names and ridiculing their beliefs, especially when you include some of humanity's greatest minds, reveals a small, insecure mind.
So, saying something I said is nonsensical makes it so?
How is it bs? How is pain tht has no cause other than natural not to be blamed on god?
Silverfiddle, I did say one at a time here. Some of the greatest minds of humanity had very ridiculous beliefs.
What can I say?
CP: You remind me of a precocious little schoolboy shooting spitwads at a bust of Moses. It makes you feel superior and gives you a perverse sense of delight, but harms the reputation of Moses and Judaism not at all.
That's not ad hominum? For the last few comments you have not even been attempting to refute my arguments. Have you realized that your attempts are futile?
Judaism is the dirt the weed of Christianity grew out of.
Pain is amoral, but god is the cause of all pain. Animals don't suffer (irrelevant). God cannot be proven false. God can be proven. You can prove, and should have to prove the positive claim that something exists rather than does not exist. It's called burden of proof. You don't address it at all. I shrug off all your evidence in three or less paragraphs, and you make no progress on my evidence against god, and somehow, I lose.
That justice in christianity for you.
I gotta go. Have fun guys.
I don't have to prove anything. I believe in God and have told you why. You assert there is no god but provide no proof; just random brain droppings from some guy named Fred.
You're wasting your time. God cannot be scientifically proven or disproved.
Finntann overwhelmed you. He stayed focused and cogent; you darted all over, flailing like a chicken with its head cut off, pecking and scratching at anything it bumps into.
Idle, useless sophistry is the end result of philosophy for philosophy's sake.
How did he overwhlem me!? I refuted all his garbage.
You know, for an atheist, you blame god for an awful lot.
A few observations:
That's why plantiga isn't taken seriously and has to teach at a catholic school.
-I would gladly compare the academic credentials of the University of Notre Dame with Capilano University any day. Who doesn't take Plantiga seriously? You? He's the reason no serious philosophers are arguing about "the problem of evil" anymore. Oh, and by the way... he's not Catholic...and his PhD is from Yale.
"the fact that I've called you guys idiots, etc... (which you are) as a sign that I've somehow lost an argument that you have made no progress is... that's pulling out all the stops"
-Let me know how that works out for you in Philosophy class.
"Judaism is the dirt the weed of Christianity grew out of."
-Is that supposed to offend me? You are being petty and small, and flailing about like a small child that doesn't know what else to do.
You call my logic "garbage" yet you are unable to refute by any means other than denial. You simply state that pain is evil, you offer no proof why.
"i want to show to you that even the evil humans do to each other is really gods fault completely"
So tell me, how are you going to prove that the evil that humans do to each other is the fault of something that you do not believe in?
It doesn't sound like you don't believe in god, it sounds like you don't like him and blame him for all ill.
And as far as the burden of proof goes... you came here with a post denying the existence of god. Which while technically on theme, was off topic.
The burden of proof is yours, I have made no assertations, only refuted yours.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.