The “naturalist” Problem of Suffering

[Heyo]

And what advantage was that ?

I think we have already established that you need a brain to suffer. More brain = more potential to suffer. And after a certain threshold a brain can give you advanced communication skills, better motor skills and the ability to plan ahead and to innovate. And remember that that is on the species level. So even if you don't use your neo cortex, you non-the-less benefit from those who do.

 

[Heyo]

For the religious, in heaven.

Nope. Quite the opposite. You have to die to get to heaven. Otoh, if you don't die, you also don't go to hell.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, after-life is a fact with the religious, singing praises of the Lord for eternity.

 

[ChristineM]

It's a package deal.
If a person doesn t like the deal they can leave.

And because of suffering, quite a few do.

Almost left myself at one time

 

[leroy]

If it is a conscious pain one can learn to avoid it in the future. Once burnt, twice shy.

Nope, you would remove your fingers from a hot pan, even if you haven’t been burned before, you don’t need to experience conscious pain in order those that reflexes

 

[leroy]

Yeah, Grandpas have their immediate advantage. When both my son and daughter-in-law go for their jobs, we take care of the house, we bring our grandson from the place where the school bus leaves him and feed him. They cannot do without us.

Yes but evolution has no foresight, why would a colony of ancient rat-like mammals select for “becoming infertile and live longer”…….. evolution can´t select based on the long term benefit of eventually becoming useful part of the society after millions of generations

 

[leroy]

How short-sighted of you. The stories told by elders can be of tremendous value in helping children reach sufficient maturity to have offspring themselves. That doesn't require "foresight."

Granted all I am saying is that “Darwinism” doesn’t see that benefit.

 

[Polymath257]

Plants fungi microbes and invertebrates perhaps fish don't feel conscious pain and have no suffering(we are talking about 99.9999+% of life forms..).... these organisms react and avoid danger but don't really suffer from conscious pain......... so the evolutionary advantage of communicating that something is wrong is already there, .... actual conscious pain is a useless and complex addition that can't be explained with evolution by Natural selection..........why would natural selection select a fish that feels conscious pain vs an other that simply reacts and tries to avoid danger?....... both would run away and hide if a larger fish bites them none would have an advantage.

My guess is that when the processing mechanics get complicated enough, consciousness happens as a result. So, it is an unavoidable consequence of an increase in information processing to a certain level.

 

[leroy]

Yeah, Grandpas have their immediate advantage. When both my son and daughter-in-law go for their jobs, we take care of the house, we bring our grandson from the place where the school bus leaves him and feed him. They cannot do without us.

On average families where mom and dad work have less children than families where only one of them works……. So from the point of view of darwinism you are a disadvantage because you prevented the birth of new babies. … remember form the point of view of Darwinism it is not about having a happy life, it is about having as many children as possible.

Obviously this is a critique to darwinism, not a critique to you, something can be extremely beneficial for the society (like awesome grandpas” ) even if they are not beneficial from the point of view of evolution and natural selection

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes but evolution has no foresight, why would a colony of ancient rat-like mammals select for “becoming infertile and live longer”

I do not know the reference of your quote. I joined the discussion late.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

I don't think that is true.

If a dog injures it's leg, it will feel pain and that pain will encourage him not to put weight on that leg. If he has an open wound, the pain will encourage him to lick it, cleaning the wound. As long as the injuries aren't too bad, they will heal on their own, with the conscious actions the dog took in response to the pain increasing the chance of that, hence increasing the chance of survival and passing on those traits. Similarly, when mother apes (including humans ) loose sight of their young, they instinctively feel emotional pain. This will lead them to quickly find their young to continue to protect and care for them which will obviously increase the chance of their young surviving and passing on those traits.

Of course, if the dog receives a real severe injury, the pain may be much more intense, even debilitating. It could even reduce their ability of acting to survive the injury (though that is less likely with a severe injury anyway). Similarly, if a mother ape's child dies, they will suffer grief, essentially an intense form the beneficial emotional pain. Again, that could actually lead to the mother taking even less care of herself and any other young for some time, even giving up entirely.

The last part is clearly not generally beneficial but it doesn't need to be. As long as the overall benefits for species survival of the first part is greater than any overall costs of the last part, the general trait is likely to be propagated. The great suffering of any individuals is literally meaningless to the overall survival of the species.

If anything, that apparent imperfection could be seen as evidence the whole thing wasn't created by some all-powerful, benevolent creator. Unlike the unguided and in-part random processes of evolution, a creator could have made a system that didn't have those imperfections (assuming they wanted to).

 

[leroy]

My guess is that when the processing mechanics get complicated enough, consciousness happens as a result. So, it is an unavoidable consequence of an increase in information processing to a certain level.

Sure that is a possibility, but theist can also “guess” for solutions to the problem of suffering if one can make unsupported guesses so can the other
For example my guess is that all suffering will result in a greater good



The point of the OP is to show that both this and atheist have the same problem none can show that their world view accounts for suffering, both can make guesses that might sound realistically possible.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. So from the point of view of darwinism you are a disadvantage because you prevented the birth of new babies. ..

Yeah, we limited our family to two children, a girl and a boy. Would have liked to have a bigger family, but did not have money for it. We live in cities in modern times, not in jungles, not even in a village where the life is different and a large family may be an advantage, more hands for work in the fields.

The great suffering of any individuals is literally meaningless to the overall survival of the species.

True. Actually, great suffering of even a whole species (humans, for example) is meaningless to evolution. It can always come up with new species. Evolution was not hurt by disappearance of dinosaurs of mammoths.

 

[leroy]

I don't think that is true.

If a dog injures it's leg, it will feel pain and that pain will encourage him not to put weight on that leg. If he has an open wound, the pain will encourage him to lick it, cleaning the wound. As long as the injuries aren't too bad, they will heal on their own, with the conscious actions the dog took in response to the pain increasing the chance of that, hence increasing the chance of survival and passing on those traits. Similarly, when mother apes (including humans ) loose sight of their young, they instinctively feel emotional pain. This will lead them to quickly find their young to continue to protect and care for them which will obviously increase the chance of their young surviving and passing on those traits.

Of course, if the dog receives a real severe injury, the pain may be much more intense, even debilitating. It could even reduce their ability of acting to survive the injury (though that is less likely with a severe injury anyway). Similarly, if a mother ape's child dies, they will suffer grief, essentially an intense form the beneficial emotional pain. Again, that could actually lead to the mother taking even less care of herself and any other young for some time, even giving up entirely.

The last part is clearly not generally beneficial but it doesn't need to be. As long as the overall benefits for species survival of the first part is greater than any overall costs of the last part, the general trait is likely to be propagated. The great suffering of any individuals is literally meaningless to the overall survival of the species.

If anything, that apparent imperfection could be seen as evidence the whole thing wasn't created by some all-powerful, benevolent creator. Unlike the unguided and in-part random processes of evolution, a creator could have made a system that didn't have those imperfections (assuming they wanted to).

The dog would lick his injured leg regardless if he is feeling conscious pain or not, dogs lick their leg simply as a reaction,

In the same way that you would remove your fingers from a hot pan, even if you have never been burned in your life.

 

[leroy]

Yeah, we limited our family to two children, a girl and a boy. Would have liked to have a bigger family, but did not have money for it. We live in cities in modern times, not in jungles, not even in a village where the life is different and a large family may be an advantage, more hands for work in the fields.

From the point of view of darwinism it is better to have 10 kids and live in extreme poverty, than to have 2 healthy and happy kids,

Again this shows that Darwinism is wrong not that you and your family are wrong

 

[Colt]

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.

The utility of suffering is for the experience of it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Who will take care of your home when you are on vacation?

Hang on a minute...you're available to housesit? Will you walk the dog?

 

[HonestJoe]

The dog would lick his injured leg regardless if he is feeling conscious pain or not, dogs lick their leg simply as a reaction,

In the same way that you would remove your fingers from a hot pan, even if you have never been burned in your life.

How would the dog be aware of the injury without pain though? The point is that it is a conscious decision by the dog to respond that way. It might not be a very complex conscious decision in that case (I deliberately picked simple examples), but it is still distinct from the pure trigger responses of plants to stimuli.

Significantly, animals (and certainly human animals) can choose to ignore pain or knowingly do things that will cause pain for a perceived greater benefit. A person might reach in to a fire to grab a bar of gold, accepting the pain for the reward of the gold. Animal intelligence (and certainly higher animal consciousness) is what makes the key difference here.

Anyway, the point of the beneficial pain outweighing the negative suffering concept still applies, regardless of exactly how animals respond to that pain to gain the benefit of it.

 

[BrightShadow]

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.

With this line of thinking - a better question (IMO) would be -
Why natural selection created Human who is destroying the environment? Obviously that was counter productive as far as rest of the species are concerned!
Why make some ape so smart that they started imaging and anticipating more than their counter parts and as a result started suffering more?
So, is natural selection a game where you "win some and lose some"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, you would remove your fingers from a hot pan, even if you haven’t been burned before, you don’t need to experience conscious pain in order those that reflexes

It appears that you are a slow learner. Most of us when we have our fingers burned learn how to avoid that in the future. A learned response can be superior to a reactive response because one lowers the chance of injury.

Are you trying not to understand on purpose again?