The “naturalist” Problem of Suffering

[Subduction Zone]

First - define evil!
Then point out which evil you are talking about - your version of evil or your opponent's version of evil.
An air force pilot or a drone operator listens to his commanding officer and blows up targeted building without being sure if there are civilians (children) in there - are they evil?
Terrorists blows up targeted places of their choosing - obviously they are evil from our prospective but why an air force pilot or drone operator is not considered evil?
So, until you can properly define evil and figure out the source of it - then, as an atheist - it is unwise to use such a word against something you don't even acknowledge.

That is a quite reasonable demand.

To me to be evil an agency of some sort would have to cause unnecessary suffering. And for suffering I define that as prolonged pain.

I would say that the state of war is almost always evil, though one does not have to be on the side of evil to be in a war. Take the current case of Russia invading the Ukraine. That was an evil unjustified act by the Russians. If a Ukraine pilot blew up a building with civilians in it that would be a tragedy. It is often a necessity during war times. One does not have the luxury always of being able to see if a target has no civilians. If a Russian pilot did so since he was already on the wrong side he would have less of an excuse than a Ukrainian pilot would have.. When it comes to terrorists they know that they are targeting civilians. They have no excuse for their actions.

 

[Truth in love]

The “atheist” Problem of Suffering

The problem of suffering is perhaps the most sound and difficult argument against the existence of God, after all why would God allow for suffering? Theist have proposed many answers, but such answers usually have a high price to pay, and quite honestly I(as a theist) haven’t seen a “good solution” for this problem

However Atheists / naturalists have the same problem, they can’t explain suffering ether, so I guess suffering is simply a strange thing that nobody cant explain.

Why Atheists cant explain Suffering

Well suffering is a complex and useless mechanism so why would it evolve by natural selection? It is true that NS is not the only naturalistic option but none of the alternatives that I am aware of seems to solve the problem.

Reacting Vs Suffering ​

For the purpose of this argument, do not confuse “reacting” and “suffering”Almost all organism react to avoid harmful situations, for example sometimes plants produce a poisonous substance when someone is trying to pull down a tree, clams would hide underground, spiders would bite you, etc, this is a very useful mechanism because it helps organisms to survive and reproduce.

However there is a big difference between “reacting” (like most organisms do ) and real and actual suffering (where only complex organisms do) a plant doesn’t really suffer, it doesn’t really feel pain it simply reacts………….too suffer is a complex mental state that doesn’t offer any selective advantage.

So the argument is

1 Complex + Useless mechanism are not expected to evolve

2 suffering (as oppose to reacting) is a complex and useless mechanism

3 therefore suffering is not expected to evolve./ therefore atheist have the same problem than theists


Sure as a naturalist you can appeal to many excuses, perhaps there is “something” that we don’t know yet about, that would explain suffering, but theist can use the same excuse, “maybe” there is a good explanation for why we have suffering.

I’m on the theist side, however I think an argument could be made the suffering discourages bad behavior and high risk situations.

having your kid die sucks beaicse it lowers your ability to pass on your genes. Personally not how I see things but I do think the argument is valid.

 

[leroy]

Really? What species learn without memory? I think that you may be conflating adaptation to a response. Please give a specific example.

And to make matters worse, even if your claim was true, which I doubt, it still does not negate my argument. That means that your counterclaim is just another red herring.

Thar is funny, five that you whole comment is a red herring.

I made my claim
-adding conscious pain has no selective benefit


Fell free to prove me wrong

 

[leroy]

Suffering increases empathy. Empathy increases social cooperation. Social cooperation is an advantage.

Sure but evolution has no foresight , there is no way Natural Selection would select suffering because in the long term , this would create better empathy in the long term

 

[leroy]

I don't think you did provide a rebuttal last time talking about trees, but you did better this time. Remember, a rebuttal is a contradictory counterargument such that the argument and counterargument can't both be correct. When you argued that suffering was useless, I presented examples where it WAS useful, such as with morning sickness. That's a rebuttal because either you are correct that suffering is useless, or I am right that it is not.

Your reply last was not a rebuttal. It didn't address the advantages I mentioned of certain kinds of suffering to survival that, if present, make your opposite opinion incorrect. You wrote about why trees didn't benefit from conscious suffering. How does that relate to the fact that animals DO? Or do you disagree that animals benefit from some conscious suffering?

Here, you seem to be making the argument that even animals don't benefit from feeling pain. You seem to be implying that an unconscious withdrawal from noxious stimuli is as good as a conscious response. All that does is prevent immediate damage, which is important, but the conscious experience is a motivator to the animal to avoid situations discovered to be painful. It's part of learning, and learning is adaptive and promotes survival.

You dont need to feel conscious pain in order to have a conscious response

1 you touched a hot pan

2 you" felt something " but you didn't really felt pain

3 you made the conscious decision of turning the stove off.


So my reply is:
- yes sometimes a conscious response is better than a mere instinct or reflex

_ but you dont need to feel conscious pain in order to have a conscious reaction.

Or do you disagree that animals benefit from some conscious suffering?

Yes animals don,t have an additional evolutionary benefit just because they can feel conscious pain.

My question is
Imagine a population of fish that react (run away) when a larger fish bites them..

Now imagine a population of fish that react run away also and feel conscious pain when a larger fish bites them

Why would natural selection select the second population?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thar is funny, five that you whole comment is a red herring.

I made my claim
-adding conscious pain has no selective benefit


Fell free to prove me wrong

I already "proved you wrong" as did others. As usual you either did not understand the refutation or you ignored it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure but evolution has no foresight , there is no way Natural Selection would select suffering because in the long term , this would create better empathy in the long term

Evolution did not select suffering. I think that you are way out of your depth here. You may be conflating suffering and pain. They are not the same thing.

 

[leroy]

I already "proved you wrong" as did others. As usual you either did not understand the refutation or you ignored it.

There seems to be a big conspiracy against you in this forum.......somebody is erraising your brilliant responses because there are not there.

 

[BrightShadow]

I would say that the state of war is almost always evil, though one does not have to be on the side of evil to be in a war. Take the current case of Russia invading the Ukraine. That was an evil unjustified act by the Russians. If a Ukraine pilot blew up a building with civilians in it that would be a tragedy. It is often a necessity during war times. One does not have the luxury always of being able to see if a target has no civilians. If a Russian pilot did so since he was already on the wrong side he would have less of an excuse than a Ukrainian pilot would have.. When it comes to terrorists they know that they are targeting civilians. They have no excuse for their actions.

I disagree. Pushing a button and killing civilians is evil. Period.
If war must be fought - it should be fought face to face - not sneaking up on your enemy and then ending up killing indiscriminately. So, our definition of evil doesn't match! So, whatever I tell you regarding your initial question would not satisfy you. You will refute it because you will make judgment based on your own understanding of evil!

Anyhow I should have been clearer in my question - I wasn't even talking about wartime scenarios. Drone attack is the new norm. It is happening a lot these days - to kill the terrorists but in the process many civilians are killed because terrorists use public places (such as schools) to hide. Drone operators know what they are hitting but they do it anyway. So, they should be classified as evil as well. But our society doesn't do it. Each side thinks like you and takes a side! A terrorist can also think he is right because a drone earlier blew up his 6 year old daughter when she was at school. So, that father could try and justify his revenge!
By randomly killing people - what a drone operator does is - create more terrorists because every civilian child killed - turns his father into a terrorist. So, it is a chain reaction of evilness. There is nothing good in it. But yet - you feel the drone operator can be justified! So, what is the difference between your justification and the father's justification whose daughter was blown away?

Anyhow, so, your answer is a clear indication that you think evil is a subjective viewpoint. It is judged via prospective. In your example - Ukrainian pilot can blow up a building full of Russian civilian children and it would just be a tragedy... not evil! And your justification is - Russia invaded Ukraine! So, one man's (Putin) decision to invade - puts all civilians from Russia blameworthy and thus every Russian child killed by a bomb by Ukrainian pilot - is just a tragedy and not evil. Did I get that right?

By staying within your line of thinking (that evil can be a matter of prospective) - what evil acts of God are you talking about?
Are you talking about wars? Then according to your example - there is two sides of the story! Your own answer should show you that!
Are you talking about every day sufferings? For example babies dying from cancer etc.? There is explanation for that too.
If you ask - why God doesn't just eliminate all suffering altogether - then there is answer for that too.
Everything can be justified if you knew the answers! These are not reasons to stop believing in God! IMO. Of course you will demand proof for any explanation. Proof is there in multiple religions. Seek it or don't!
No one can put it on a platter for you! So, believe what your brain allows you to and continue your usual severe criticism of theists because you feel proof is on your side.
In the meantime - I would tell you the same thing as I did to Sheldon - be prepared to fade away into nothingness!

 

[Subduction Zone]

There seems to be a big conspiracy against you in this forum.......somebody is erraising your brilliant because there are not there.

No, once again, I am not the only one that showed that you were wrong. Why do you try to make it personal when you make a mistake?

Do you realize that some animals can learn? Even most humans can learn. This may come as a surprise to you. Learning allows one to not repeat errors that cause pain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree. Pushing a button and killing civilians is evil. Period.
If war must be fought - it should be fought face to face - not sneaking up on your enemy and then ending up killing indiscriminately. So, our definition of evil doesn't match! So, whatever I tell you regarding your initial question would not satisfy you. You will refute it because you will make judgment based on your own understanding of evil!

Anyhow I should have been clearer in my question - I wasn't even talking about wartime scenarios. Drone attack is the new norm. It is happening a lot these days - to kill the terrorists but in the process many civilians are killed because terrorists use public places (such as schools) to hide. Drone operators know what they are hitting but they do it anyway. So, they should be classified as evil as well. But our society doesn't do it. Each side thinks like you and takes a side! A terrorist can also think he is right because a drone earlier blew up his 6 year old daughter when she was at school. So, that father could try and justify his revenge!
By randomly killing people - what a drone operator does is - create more terrorists because every civilian child killed - turns his father into a terrorist. So, it is a chain reaction of evilness. There is nothing good in it. But yet - you feel the drone operator can be justified! So, what is the difference between your justification and the father's justification whose daughter was blown away?

Anyhow, so, your answer is a clear indication that you think evil is a subjective viewpoint. It is judged via prospective. In your example - Ukrainian pilot can blow up a building full of Russian civilian children and it would just be a tragedy... not evil! And your justification is - Russia invaded Ukraine! So, one man's (Putin) decision to invade - puts all civilians from Russia blameworthy and thus every Russian child killed by a bomb by Ukrainian pilot - is just a tragedy and not evil. Did I get that right?

By staying within your line of thinking (that evil can be a matter of prospective) - what evil acts of God are you talking about?
Are you talking about wars? Then according to your example - there is two sides of the story! Your own answer should show you that!
Are you talking about every day sufferings? For example babies dying from cancer etc.? There is explanation for that too.
If you ask - why God doesn't just eliminate all suffering altogether - then there is answer for that too.
Everything can be justified if you knew the answers! These are not reasons to stop believing in God! IMO. Of course you will demand proof for any explanation. Proof is there in multiple religions. Seek it or don't!
No one can put it on a platter for you! So, believe what your brain allows you to and continue your usual severe criticism of theists because you feel proof is on your side.
In the meantime - I would tell you the same thing as I did to Sheldon - be prepared to fade away into nothingness!

Sorry, but your perfect version of war no longer exists. Yet the need to protect oneself from a greater evil will still exist at times.

It is hard to take anyone that over uses green ink seriously . You may not realize but it makes one's posts harder to read if one uses excessive green ink. Also stop using strawman arguments. It is not an honest way to debate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So my reply is:
- yes sometimes a conscious response is better than a mere instinct or reflex
_ but you dont need to feel conscious pain in order to have a conscious reaction.

I don't know what that second comment means. Experiencing pain is not just a warning that one is at risk of suffering tissue damage now and to take corrective action, but also a teaching experience. The memory of the pain modifies future behavior if one can learn.

My question is
Imagine a population of fish that react (run away) when a larger fish bites them..
Now imagine a population of fish that react run away also and feel conscious pain when a larger fish bites them
Why would natural selection select the second population?

Populations of fish aren't bitten.

Your argument is that consciousness of pain doesn't confer any selective advantage. You haven't made that case. You just ask how it helps. It helps me. Do you ever get a leg cramp at night? I do, and it's important that I recognize it coming quickly and hop out of bed to stand to stop and reverse it. That's not life saving, but it illustrates a benefit to bringing the thinking mind to bear on any task where reflex just isn't as effective. What do you do in a burning house if you aren't experiencing pain consciously? If the unconscious reflex is to run, which way? Imagine your buddy beside you in this burning house with less consciousness than you, perhaps because he is in a drunken stupor. Who's more likely to survive?

Your argument depends on a consciousness of pain being of no value to an organism, but that's clearly not the case, since examples of its usefulness are not hard to find.

 

[leroy]

No, once again, I am not the only one that showed that you were wrong. Why do you try to make it personal when you make a mistake?

Do you realize that some animals can learn? Even most humans can learn. This may come as a surprise to you. Learning allows one to not repeat errors that cause pain.

Granted, and nobody is disputing the fact that animals can learn perhaps a closer look at my argument and an honest effort from your part to try to understand it might provide value to this conversation

 

[leroy]

I don't know what that second comment means. Experiencing pain is not just a warning that one is at risk of suffering tissue damage now and to take corrective action, but also a teaching experience. The memory of the pain modifies future behavior if one can learn.



Populations of fish aren't bitten.

Your argument is that consciousness of pain doesn't confer any selective advantage. You haven't made that case. You just ask how it helps. It helps me. Do you ever get a leg cramp at night? I do, and it's important that I recognize it coming quickly and hop out of bed to stand to stop and reverse it. That's not life saving, but it illustrates a benefit to bringing the thinking mind to bear on any task where reflex just isn't as effective. What do you do in a burning house if you aren't experiencing pain consciously? If the unconscious reflex is to run, which way? Imagine your buddy beside you in this burning house with less consciousness than you, perhaps because he is in a drunken stupor. Who's more likely to survive?

Your argument depends on a consciousness of pain being of no value to an organism, but that's clearly not the case, since examples of its usefulness are not hard to find.

Your argument is based on 2 straw man arguments

1 I am not saying that conscious pain doesn’t help, I am saying that it doesn’t help in the context of evolution and natural selection………. If a fish get bitten it will react and run away regardless if its in conscious pain or not.

2 I am not saying that conscious reactions are useless , I grant that sometimes a conscious reaction is better than a reflex, the point is that you can have a conscious reaction without feeling conscious pain, ……. If the fish is intelligent and capable of making conscious choices, then it would do something to prevent being harmed by a larger fish regardless if it feels conscious pain or not.

So why would natural selection select the fish that can feel conscious pain? Why are y ou avoiding this question?

I even gave you an example, when you touch a hot pan, you would remove your hand, without feeling conscious pain, and given that you are intelligent and conscious you can have a conscious reaction in the future (like turning the stove off)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am not saying that conscious pain doesn’t help, I am saying that it doesn’t help in the context of evolution and natural selection

And I say that you haven't made that case.

I'm assuming that your larger point is that evolution wouldn't select for animals experiencing pain consciously, so the ability shouldn't be there unless an intelligent designer put it there, a form of irreducible complexity, that is, something that nature could not have fashioned blindly through a series of naturally occurring, small incremental changes each conferring a selective advantage over the last. What else could your purpose be? If so, why would God give man and the beasts the capacity to suffer if it didn't confer some advantage to the creatures?

Is that your larger argument, that since we experience suffering, and since evolution could not be responsible, God is? If not, what is your purpose for pursuing this line of inquiry?

I am not saying that conscious reactions are useless , I grant that sometimes a conscious reaction is better than a reflex, the point is that you can have a conscious reaction without feeling conscious pai

If a conscious reaction can be more effective than a reflex, why wouldn't it be selected for? Your argument depends on the animal who doesn't experience suffering to be as well off as the one that does. You can't have it both ways. Either conscious suffering does nothing for survival, or it is a trait that evolution might select for if it does. Your last two comments contained the words, "I am not saying that conscious pain doesn’t help" and "I grant that sometimes a conscious reaction is better than a reflex." That's what evolution selects for - "help" and "better."

How do you suppose we'd fare if we couldn't experience the suffering of cold exposure? Do you imagine the body running somewhere for warmth without feeling the discomfort of cold exposure. Are you aware that this is how lethargic to stuporous alcoholics die in the cold - they don't feel what they would were they more alert. From The Dangers of Alcohol and Cold Temperatures | Williamsville Wellness Center : "The dangers of drinking and cold weather continue to rise with increasing levels of alcohol consumption. When alcohol consumption reaches the point of affecting decision making and losing consciousness, the results can become deadly."

The guy who feels the cold does better than the one who can't.

So why would natural selection select the fish that can feel conscious pain? Why are you avoiding this question?

I don't think I'm avoiding the question. I don't know what a fish's experience is - just how conscious it - but I see no reason why the animal kingdom wouldn't evolve such that suffering confers a selective advantage. Why else would that suffering occur if not for it conferring an evolutionary benefit? You haven't offered an alternate explanation for why we actually do experience suffering. If it's not due to an intelligent designer, it must be due to evolution, correct?

I even gave you an example, when you touch a hot pan, you would remove your hand, without feeling conscious pain, and given that you are intelligent and conscious you can have a conscious reaction in the future (like turning the stove off)

Why would I turn off the stove? And why wouldn't I put my hand back on the hot element if I'm unaware that I shouldn't? How could my body know to withdraw the hand reflexively if it weren't detecting tissue damage, and if it were detecting a threat, why keep that knowledge out of consciousness? So the guy can keep putting his hand on the element and watching it withdraw automatically and painlessly?

 

[leroy]

And I say that you haven't made that case.

The fish that ran away because it was harmed by a larger fish will do equally good as the fish that ran away and felt conscious pain . that is the case that I am making

The reason why I insist in fish is because it´s likely that the ability to feel conscious pain evolved In a primitive fish

I'm assuming that your larger point is that evolution wouldn't select for animals experiencing pain consciously, so the ability shouldn't be there unless an intelligent designer put it there, a form of irreducible complexity, that is, something that nature could not have fashioned blindly through a series of naturally occurring, small incremental changes each conferring a selective advantage over the last. What else could your purpose be? If so, why would God give man and the beasts the capacity to suffer if it didn't confer some advantage to the creatures?

No , my larger point is Cleary and unambiguously described in the OP , my is that nether do theist nor atheist /natrualists have a good explanation for why is there pain and suffering in the world………..I don’t claim to have a better explanation….

If a conscious reaction can be more effective than a reflex, why wouldn't it be selected for?

Straw man, I am not saying that conscious reactions can’t be better than reflexes and therefore be selected by NS.

I am saying that you can have a conscious reaction even if you don’t feel conscious pain. As most people do with hot pans.

For example if our fish is intelligent enough, he could have a conscious reaction to avoid the big fish regardless if he is feeling conscious pain or not.

Conscious pain is the result of an interaction between your brain and your nervous system, such communication gives as a result “awareness that one is in Pain” without this “awareness” you would still “feel something” and react accordingly , but you wouldn’t be aware of the fact that you are in Pain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Granted, and nobody is disputing the fact that animals can learn perhaps a closer look at my argument and an honest effort from your part to try to understand it might provide value to this conversation

You seem to be since the explanation of why you were wrong involved the ability of animals to learn.


And you should be the last to complain that others are not taking an honest look at your arguments. If you involve learning then you are using the very argument that refutes you since in your set up there can be no learning.

 

[Sheldon]

Unless, the rapist accepts Jesus into his/her heart.

You're right, I forgot about that, if Hitler repented genuinely before he died, he's in heaven right now. Gandhi on the other hand might be in Hell, go figure.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

nether do theist nor atheist /natrualists have a good explanation for why is there pain and suffering in the world

I disagree. I'd elaborate, but what's the point? Look at how many questions I asked in my last post that went unanswered:

How do you suppose we'd fare if we couldn't experience the suffering of cold exposure?

what is your purpose for pursuing this line of inquiry?

Why else would that suffering occur if not for it conferring an evolutionary benefit?

If it's not due to an intelligent designer, it must be due to evolution, correct?

Why would I turn off the stove? And why wouldn't I put my hand back on the hot element if I'm unaware that I shouldn't?

You also didn't address why "help" and "better" don't equate to survival benefit.

Why does that happen? Did you think that I wouldn't be interested in the answers, or that I didn't deserve them? The answers to those questions would have helped us make forward progress, but you declined to do your part. Whatever, you triple my work when you do that, and the work isn't for my benefit. I don't have any problem with this matter. You do. You have questions.

I'll also add that it's disrespectful and offensive. My words don't count? Why do I even bother writing them to you? I've treated your words like they mattered, but they don't any more. Even if you answered those questions now, I not interested in continuing any further. I've made my case, I'm done trying to get you to cooperate, we can't make progress if you won't, and I've lost interest in trying to help.

We can do this again in the future on another topic if you like, but once I see that you (or anybody else) won't do their part, I'll do what I'm doing here: Ending the discussion.

Before signing off, since you declined to weigh in with your opinions to all of those questions, I'll just go ahead and answer them. We would do worse without conscious suffering from cold, which is why nature would select for individuals with that capability. You have no purpose for this line of questioning apart from arguing against evolution by insisting that evolution could not have accomplished that, which points to your god. Both theists and atheists have an explanation for conscious suffering. There is no reason for conscious suffering to occur unless either it conferred a survival benefit or an intelligent designer wanted it to be that way. I wouldn't turn off the stove. I would just keep burning my hand on it because without a conscious experience to teach me, I'd have no more reason the second time to avoid it than I did the first, also demonstrating the survival advantage of consciousness of pain.

Thanks for your good cheer. If we do this again in the future on another topic, please try to do your part. Look at what's written. If you disagree with any point made, point it out and give your reason. If you agree, say so in order to let me know that you saw it and agreed. If you are asked any non-rhetorical questions like all of the ones above, answer them. That's dialectic. If not, the ending will be the same as this one, but probably sooner. Why? Ask yourself what's in it for the other guy when you do that. What value do you think there is for me for you to ignore so much of it? I can tell you: none.

 

[Sheldon]

It only remains in the heads of people who don't know how to think beyond the box.Some people put themselves in a box and just don't know how to get out of it. They think with one-track mind and just don't know how to reason via critical thinking!

No, you obviously don't understand critical thinking, or theodicy, and are trying to wave away a rational paradox that theologians have struggled with for millennia, with desperate rationalisations. If you genuinely think you have solved it, I can only suggest you contact the Vatican, they'll be thrilled.

Why not?

Obviously because the paradox remains.

I solved it! Do I get a prize?

You can pat yourself on the back if that makes you happy, but theologians globally will not be impressed, nor will anyone who understand the paradox of theodicy.

I already showed the theodicy is flawed.

I think you need to learn what it means.

It assumes our world is the center piece and everything revolves around us! (figuratively speaking). It does not understand how the time works outside of our universe.
God is not existing with evil in the same dimension - in a manner ancient philosophers assumed.

No it doesn't, you don't seem to understand the paradox, or the rational deduction it is drawn from.

Why keep mentioning Christianity? Please define Christianity.

Obviously because one concept of deity that creates the paradox, is quite a common one among many Christians, though of course it is not unique to that religion.

Once again, I told you the theodicy is flawed. It starts with wrong premise!

Why are you telling me, I don't believe in any deity or deities, you can direct your objections to theists who believe in omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity.

It is not fooling me because I didn't put myself in a box!

The paradox remains, and if you genuinely think you have succeeded where countless theologians and religions apologists have failed for millennia, then it manifestly has fooled you. Hubris and stridency are not sound argument.

God can be omni-benevolent and and all the other Omnis while suffering occurs on a tiny world of the size of a drop of water.

Not without violating the aw of non contradiction.

God can choose not to be omni-present .......Only folks who want to limit God's capabilities would create something like this theodicy.

You have simply proved again that you don't understand theodicy, or at least the rational contradiction that causes it. I will give you a clue, it has absolutely nothing to do with limiting those characteristics in a deity. Quite the opposite in fact. It's also you who trying to rationalise this paradox away by imaging a deity that can limit it's powers. Imagining a deity that chooses to allow suffering, no matter how it achieved this, cannot rationally be claimed to be omnibenevolent.

This line of thinking is exactly what creates atheists.

Nope, I am an atheist and theodicy has absolutely nothing to do with my lack of belief.

if some sort of evil exist in a realm while God decided to be temporarily absent - then it should not be an issue and it doesn't make God malevolent.

Choosing to allow evil is a rational contradiction with omnibenevolence.