Benevolent god who allows natural selection?

[Bryozoa]

Why could a supposed benevolent and omnipotent god not have devised a humane evolutionary mechanism rather than Natural Selection? Natural selection invariably leads to suffering as the fitter organisms prosper at the expense of weaker organisms and competition is fiercest among members of the same species. Human society is no different and competition over precious resources is just as rife and often violent. For me Darwinian evolution struck the fatal blow to any notion of a benevolent deity presiding over worldly affairs.

Atheism is surely more desirable than contemplating a deistic deity, indifferent to the untold agony that pervades the natural world? Surely a benevolent creator would have made all life-forms autotrophic, thus negating heterotrophy and its by-product predation? In such a scenario humans would be vegetal organisms able to photosynthesize and reproduce asexually. It would be a world without competition over food resources or reproductive rights.

Even 'Sexual Selection' Darwin's bedfellow to Natural Selection is quite brutal and gives stronger more virile organisms the upper hand in the reproductive lottery. Ultimately all these inhumane evolutionary mechanisms including predation form the stumbling block for reconciling a world created by a so called benevolent god. The best Christians can hope for is that the Gnostics might have been right with their ideas of the transcendent god having no responsibility for or jurisdiction over the degraded universe of Matter.

 

[Skwim]

Why could a supposed benevolent and omnipotent god not have devised a humane evolutionary mechanism rather than Natural Selection? Natural selection invariably leads to suffering as the fitter organisms prosper at the expense of weaker organisms and competition is fiercest among members of the same species.

There's no necessary invariable suffering of the "weaker" organism at all. Often times a new species arises because its habitat changes and the evolved species is better able to take advantage of the change than those whose population did not evolve. OR, an entire population simply undergoes change (evolves) into another form (perhaps a new species), leaving its old form to go extinct. No necessary "fiercest" at all.

An excellent example is the evolution of the peppered moth. Click HERE.

Human society is no different and competition over precious resources is just as rife and often violent. For me Darwinian evolution struck the fatal blow to any notion of a benevolent deity presiding over worldly affairs.

Hmmm. . . . Never heard of a benevolent deity presiding over worldly affairs. What deity do you have in mind?

Atheism is surely more desirable than contemplating a deistic deity, indifferent to the untold agony that pervades the natural world?

But many, many people, correctly or not, don't believe their deity is indifferent, and/or it has good reason to allow the "untold agony."



By the way, welcome to RF. Glad to have you aboard.

.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Why could a supposed benevolent and omnipotent god not have devised a humane evolutionary mechanism rather than Natural Selection? Natural selection invariably leads to suffering as the fitter organisms prosper at the expense of weaker organisms and competition is fiercest among members of the same species. Human society is no different and competition over precious resources is just as rife and often violent. For me Darwinian evolution struck the fatal blow to any notion of a benevolent deity presiding over worldly affairs.

Atheism is surely more desirable than contemplating a deistic deity, indifferent to the untold agony that pervades the natural world? Surely a benevolent creator would have made all life-forms autotrophic, thus negating heterotrophy and its by-product predation? In such a scenario humans would be vegetal organisms able to photosynthesize and reproduce asexually. It would be a world without competition over food resources or reproductive rights.

Even 'Sexual Selection' Darwin's bedfellow to Natural Selection is quite brutal and gives stronger more virile organisms the upper hand in the reproductive lottery. Ultimately all these inhumane evolutionary mechanisms including predation form the stumbling block for reconciling a world created by a so called benevolent god. The best Christians can hope for is that the Gnostics might have been right with their ideas of the transcendent god having no responsibility for or jurisdiction over the degraded universe of Matter.

Of course the creation as we see it is NOT the original design. We live in a good but broken creation and the pain and suffering seen is a result of sin

All creation groans as Paul said and awaits the redemption and freedom of the children of God and will enjoy it someday. It ain't over yet.

 

[nPeace]

Why could a supposed benevolent and omnipotent god not have devised a humane evolutionary mechanism rather than Natural Selection? Natural selection invariably leads to suffering as the fitter organisms prosper at the expense of weaker organisms and competition is fiercest among members of the same species. Human society is no different and competition over precious resources is just as rife and often violent. For me Darwinian evolution struck the fatal blow to any notion of a benevolent deity presiding over worldly affairs.

Atheism is surely more desirable than contemplating a deistic deity, indifferent to the untold agony that pervades the natural world? Surely a benevolent creator would have made all life-forms autotrophic, thus negating heterotrophy and its by-product predation? In such a scenario humans would be vegetal organisms able to photosynthesize and reproduce asexually. It would be a world without competition over food resources or reproductive rights.

Even 'Sexual Selection' Darwin's bedfellow to Natural Selection is quite brutal and gives stronger more virile organisms the upper hand in the reproductive lottery. Ultimately all these inhumane evolutionary mechanisms including predation form the stumbling block for reconciling a world created by a so called benevolent god. The best Christians can hope for is that the Gnostics might have been right with their ideas of the transcendent god having no responsibility for or jurisdiction over the degraded universe of Matter.

That word is so often used, sometimes alone, in a question. Why? Usually, when I ask a why question, I listen for an answer to the question, because clearly, I asked because I don't know. Many people ask, Why suffering? Why death? Why...? Surely, I believe, there is an answer - there must be.

Some don't find the answer they get, satisfying to them, and some give up on asking, and some form their own conclusion.
If I ask why, and then supply the answer, it means I don't really want an answer, because I know... or believe I do. Do you... know that is?

 

[joe1776]

...Atheism is surely more desirable than contemplating a deistic deity, indifferent to the untold agony that pervades the natural world?...

Suppose a deistic creator wanted to give us free will along with moral guidance so that we might learn to cooperate toward the goal of global harmony. How would we learn if the life experience didn't offer challenges?

Asking "Why didn't God just make life easy for us?" is like asking why the teacher didn't just give us the answers to the test.

I also think you have the wrong idea about natural selection. Most people do, IMO.

I think the fittest to survive will be those willing to cooperate in a worthy cause and not the brutal, aggressive competitor. For example, in WW2, 55 nations cooperated to defeat the Axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan with its leaders bent on oppression.

There's some science now confirming my position. At UCal Berkley, studies are supporting what they call "the survival of the kindest."
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/darwins_touch_survival_of_the_kindest/

 

[nPeace]

There's no necessary invariable suffering of the "weaker" organism at all. Often times a new species arises because its habitat changes and the evolved species is better able to take advantage of the change than those whose population did not evolve. OR, an entire population simply undergoes change (evolves) into another form (perhaps a new species), leaving its old form to go extinct. No necessary "fiercest" at all.

An excellent example is the evolution of the peppered moth. Click HERE.



Hmmm. . . . Never heard of a benevolent deity presiding over worldly affairs. What deity do you have in mind?


But many, many people, correctly of not, don't believe their deity is indifferent, and/or it has good reason to allow the "untold agony."



By the way, welcome to RF. Glad to have you aboard.

.

When the environment changes, species adapt. The environment is always changing, back and forth.
Apparently they forget to tell us what happens when the environment changes back, and what advantage the then adapted species has over others.

Consider an example: In the 1970’s, researchers studied finches on the Galápagos Islands. They noted that climate changes caused finches with slightly larger beaks to survive more readily. This, some concluded, provided evidence of evolution. But was it evidence of evolution, or was it simply adaptation? Years later, the finches with smaller beaks once again dominated the population. This experiment led Jeffrey H. Schwartz, a professor of anthropology, to conclude that while adaptation may help a species survive under changing circumstances, “it is not creating anything new.”

The peppered moth story is no different.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why could a supposed benevolent and omnipotent god not have devised a humane evolutionary mechanism rather than Natural Selection? Natural selection invariably leads to suffering as the fitter organisms prosper at the expense of weaker organisms and competition is fiercest among members of the same species. Human society is no different and competition over precious resources is just as rife and often violent. For me Darwinian evolution struck the fatal blow to any notion of a benevolent deity presiding over worldly affairs.

Atheism is surely more desirable than contemplating a deistic deity, indifferent to the untold agony that pervades the natural world? Surely a benevolent creator would have made all life-forms autotrophic, thus negating heterotrophy and its by-product predation? In such a scenario humans would be vegetal organisms able to photosynthesize and reproduce asexually. It would be a world without competition over food resources or reproductive rights.

Even 'Sexual Selection' Darwin's bedfellow to Natural Selection is quite brutal and gives stronger more virile organisms the upper hand in the reproductive lottery. Ultimately all these inhumane evolutionary mechanisms including predation form the stumbling block for reconciling a world created by a so called benevolent god. The best Christians can hope for is that the Gnostics might have been right with their ideas of the transcendent god having no responsibility for or jurisdiction over the degraded universe of Matter.

Yes, the contemporary science of abiogenesis and evolution does make the ancient literal Biblical Creation stories myth and false. Even contemporary attempts reinterpret Genesis to fit the doctrine and dogma of Christianity are like trying to drive square pegs in round holes. It does not work.

The ancient world views of Creation are not the only views of Creation. The Baha'i Faith considers Creation by the Laws of Nature and natural processes. The Baha'i Faith teaches the principle of the harmony of science and religion where scripture must be understood in the light of the progressive evolving knowledge of science.

What is observed as physical suffering is not spiritual suffering. No problem with evolution and natural selection as in harmony with Creation in the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

For me Darwinian evolution struck the fatal blow to any notion of a benevolent deity presiding over worldly affairs.

But that's just it; He's not right now. Jehovah is allowing mankind to be independent of His control. That was one of the issues raised in Genesis 3:1-15. (Can man rule himself?) Hardly anyone seems to understand that. Everything is out of whack! But the issue is just about settled.

Revelation 11:18..."the appointed time..to bring to ruin those ruining the Earth"

 

[viole]

That word is so often used, sometimes alone, in a question. Why? Usually, when I ask a why question, I listen for an answer to the question, because clearly, I asked because I don't know. Many people ask, Why suffering? Why death? Why...? Surely, I believe, there is an answer - there must be.

Some don't find the answer they get, satisfying to them, and some give up on asking, and some form their own conclusion.
If I ask why, and then supply the answer, it means I don't really want an answer, because I know... or believe I do. Do you... know that is?

It is like asking why that mountain is there and not a few kilometers south. There are no whys, only hows. Whys assume a teleological and purposeful universe for which there is zero evidence. Only our yearning for something more and the difficulty to accept the obvious, create whys for which there is no answer.

Ciao

- viole

 

[tas8831]

Why could a supposed benevolent and omnipotent god not have devised a humane evolutionary mechanism rather than Natural Selection?

Seeing as how this deity took to drowning millions because they didn't worship him enough (in essence), not sure why we expect any humane treatment from him in anything else.

 

[Bryozoa]

Seeing as how this deity took to drowning millions because they didn't worship him enough (in essence), not sure why we expect any humane treatment from him in anything else.

The anthropomorphic Abrahamic god is a complete fiction. I'd go so far as to call it an offensive lie. The deistic god isn't much better. A prime mover 'uncaused caused' which just sits back and watches (if the worthless thing is even conscious) at the suffering innate in biological life. A just and compassionate god would have ensured that biological life never arose in the universe.

Reading through the replies I'm amused at the naivete of those who think 'natural selection' isn't brutal. To coin a phrase nature is 'red in tooth and claw' but because of medical advances insulating humans from the natural environment, it's easy to take a sentimental view of nature and downplay 'the struggle for existence' which exists at every level and in every kingdom of life. That struggle for existence is most acute when organisms (and this included humans not all that long ago) have a surplus of offspring to increase the chances that at least some will survive and flourish while others die slow and meaningless deaths usually through disease, starvation or predation. That is natural selection in a nutshell and any god responsible for such a mechanism isn't a god remotely worth talking about.

The argument that we live in a broken world allowing 'survival of the fittest' because of the supposed actions of Edenic humans is also absurd. If that is so why aren't non-human animals exempt? Why do they have to also suffer because of the alleged actions of human beings? Of course religious believers will say this is because humans have a special place in creation. What rot, we're just a chance species like every other organism on the planet, all sharing a distant universal common ancestor. There is nothing special about humans, actually we're the most aggressive species on the planet by far and any god that would hold us in high esteem is not a god to be trusted.

 

[Watchmen]

I’ve never heard natural selection described as “inhumane” before.

 

[Bryozoa]

I’ve never heard natural selection described as “inhumane” before.

Well it certainly isn't fair. Modification with descent confers advantage upon some organisms but not others. If natural selection is being guided by the design of an underlying creator (a notion I find laughable) then god is the supreme eugenicist practising cosmic husbandry.

 

[Watchmen]

Well it certainly isn't fair. Modification with descent confers advantage upon some organisms but not others. If natural selection is being guided by the design of an underlying creator (a notion I find laughable) then god is the supreme eugenicist practising cosmic husbandry.

I’ve never heard natural selection described as unfair.

 

[nPeace]

It is like asking why that mountain is there and not a few kilometers south. There are no whys, only hows. Whys assume a teleological and purposeful universe for which there is zero evidence. Only our yearning for something more and the difficulty to accept the obvious, create whys for which there is no answer.

Ciao

- viole

What huge assumptions those are... and based on what? Personal opinion.
That's okay. We all have one or the other.

 

[tosca1]

Why could a supposed benevolent and omnipotent god not have devised a humane evolutionary mechanism rather than Natural Selection?

Could it be He has His own reasons.........

.............that's........ none of our business?


What god would it be to have to explain his every move to mere creations? Would it be a god that's so weak and spineless as to follow the latest entitlement oft-cited by
man-made media, "people need to know?"

 

[tayla]

Benevolent god who allows natural selection?

1. If there is a God, he/she must be good and beautiful.
2. Suffering exists in the world via animals eating each other alive and humans torturing each other to death.

The error is, I think, to assume that this proves there is no God. But what if God is aloof to the suffering for some good reason?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why could a supposed benevolent and omnipotent god not have devised a humane evolutionary mechanism rather than Natural Selection? Natural selection invariably leads to suffering as the fitter organisms prosper at the expense of weaker organisms and competition is fiercest among members of the same species. Human society is no different and competition over precious resources is just as rife and often violent. For me Darwinian evolution struck the fatal blow to any notion of a benevolent deity presiding over worldly affairs.

Atheism is surely more desirable than contemplating a deistic deity, indifferent to the untold agony that pervades the natural world? Surely a benevolent creator would have made all life-forms autotrophic, thus negating heterotrophy and its by-product predation? In such a scenario humans would be vegetal organisms able to photosynthesize and reproduce asexually. It would be a world without competition over food resources or reproductive rights.

Even 'Sexual Selection' Darwin's bedfellow to Natural Selection is quite brutal and gives stronger more virile organisms the upper hand in the reproductive lottery. Ultimately all these inhumane evolutionary mechanisms including predation form the stumbling block for reconciling a world created by a so called benevolent god. The best Christians can hope for is that the Gnostics might have been right with their ideas of the transcendent god having no responsibility for or jurisdiction over the degraded universe of Matter.

Or you can just throw out moralizing it and accept it as part of life. No need to turn to atheism or Gnostic dualism.

 

[sooda]

Of course the creation as we see it is NOT the original design. We live in a good but broken creation and the pain and suffering seen is a result of sin

All creation groans as Paul said and awaits the redemption and freedom of the children of God and will enjoy it someday. It ain't over yet.

You mean like when an omniscient God was so disgusted with his creation that he destroyed it all with a world wide flood????