The “naturalist” Problem of Suffering

[Subduction Zone]

Again, one can learn and avoid destructive stimulus, without feeling conscious pain, this is not speculation we know is true because this is what 99.9999+% of organism do

So yes your objection has been answered (and ignored)………..and then you have the dishonesty of claiming that it has been answered

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.

 

[dybmh]

So why would this extra layer of complexity evovle and be selected by natural selection if it doesnt add any advantage?

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

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes I did provide a rebuttal. No, “pain” doesn’t have a selective advantage; any selective advantage of pain (including those that you mentioned) could be obtained by simply reacting and instinctively avoiding harm. (this is what I labeled as unconscious pain). Your burden is to show a realistic example where feeling pain represents a selectable advantage against someone who simply reacts and avoids danger or harm.

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.

 

[Koldo]

Making jokes is indeed 1 way of coping

Oh. So that was a joke of yours. Ok.

 

[Sheldon]

When you start from a wrong premise you will end up with a wrong conclusion!

Like the unevidenced premise that a supernatural curse like sin exists, for example.

 

[Sheldon]

Strange

I see no problem at all with suffering (as a Theist), it's a perfect fit in God's Creation

So no problem with children being raped then? No problem with children dying in agony of cancer? No problem with parents suffering unimaginably while watching on helpless?

I don't believe in any deity of course, but if that's what we have to be ok with, then even were it real it could go **** itself.

 

[Heyo]

that is not true

For years I´ve been asking you to quote a single factual mistake made by me, and you have been unable to accomplish that task………… so you are not in “correction mode” you are in “I will claim that you are wrong without justification “ mode

Just this once, as a complete lecture in evolutionary biology is going to derail the thread.

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

This only shows that you don't understand the ToE. Counting individuals is only ever a snapshot. 10 extremely poor children may seem a success at the moment but next year, next generation or ten generations along the line that may be reversed. The two healthy and wealthy kids have greater chances to survive a pandemic (because they are healthy and have access to better health care) or a famine or a catastrophe.
When you look at nature, there are all kinds of reproductive strategies. Some species have thousands of offspring for which they don't care and only a very few make it to maturity. Other species have few kids and they invest heavily in them. Humans thrive with a K strategy. (K and r reproductive strategies)

 

[stvdv]

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

Strange

I see no problem at all with suffering (as a Theist), it's a perfect fit in God's Creation

You can have all of it. Enjoy yourself.

Making jokes is indeed 1 way of coping

Oh. So that was a joke of yours. Ok.

I was serious, so I thought that your reply was a joke, because I did not say that I "like suffering", but I answered specifically to the OP, that I see no problem with suffering and the existence of God, it even makes sense (though not enjoyable)

When you see my reply in context of OP, then your reply, to me, could only mean "a joke", though I anticipated you were not joking and "dead" serious.

So, I guess now that you read and replied to me without taking the context (OP) into consideration (and then I understand your reply, as it might be interpreted in a way that I am a kind of masochist, enjoying suffering)

I hope this solves the confusion

 

[BrightShadow]

It is so nice when one's opponent finally sees their error.

It is not nice when one doesn't see their error even when it is lit up in front of their face like a christmas tree! (Just an analogy!)

If a God has all of the typical "omnis" that some believers claim then God is directly responsible for all pain.

What does "omni" got to do with anything? If God's kingdom is like an ocean - he can choose not to be "omnipresent" in a space equivalent to one single drop and have his angels run the affairs. God can be "omni" everywhere else. It won't nullify his overall status!

With your line of thinking - every judge is directly responsible for the pain they inflict on the accused through their judgments. Did I get that right? Do you really believe judges are responsible?
You think if a creator existed he is causing pain without reason! Why would he do that?
This is why, I would say - you did something wrong! Your premise is wrong that you were born sinless! IMO

 

[BrightShadow]

Like the unevidenced premise that a supernatural curse like sin exists, for example.

So, are you saying atheists don't accept anything unevidenced? Really? Atheists don't accept any "word of mouth" evidence from anyone?
In an atheist's court - will a rapist walk free even if five witnesses testify they saw him rape?

It seems you are implying - due to lack of evidence atheists don't accept sins exists, God exists, God's immediate kingdom exists or the notion that there would be a judgment day! Did I get that right?
Ok, no problem! In that case - atheists will not seek God's immediate kingdom and thus they will just fade into nothingness.
Just remember to not cry when that happens! Just fade into nothingness without any complains like a good atheist would do!

 

[Koldo]

I was serious, so I thought that your reply was a joke, because I did not say that I "like suffering", but I answered specifically to the OP, that I see no problem with suffering and the existence of God, it even makes sense (though not enjoyable)

When you see my reply in context of OP, then your reply, to me, could only mean "a joke", though I anticipated you were not joking and "dead" serious.

So, I guess now that you read and replied to me without taking the context (OP) into consideration (and then I understand your reply, as it might be interpreted in a way that I am a kind of masochist, enjoying suffering)

I hope this solves the confusion

There was no confusion. I was making fun of your last post.

You don't like suffering and yet you see no problem with it? You can have all of it. Suit yourself.

 

[stvdv]

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.

@leroy
Thanks for your very clear OP. I "love" it

 

[stvdv]

There was no confusion. I was making fun of your last post.

You don't like suffering and yet you see no problem with it? You can have all of it. Suit yourself.

You totally missed my point

But well, like you said:

Suit yourself.

 

[stvdv]

I was making fun of your last post.

Good to know:
1: not smart
2: you are on my list now

Note: this is no joke

 

[Koldo]

Good to know:
1: not smart
2: you are on my list now

Note: this is no joke

As if I care. Enjoy the suffering you see no problem with while at it.

 

[stvdv]

As if I care. Enjoy the suffering you see no problem with while at it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not nice when one doesn't see their error even when it is lit up in front of their face like a christmas tree! (Just an analogy!)

What does "omni" got to do with anything? If God's kingdom is like an ocean - he can choose not to be "omnipresent" in a space equivalent to one single drop and have his angels run the affairs. God can be "omni" everywhere else. It won't nullify his overall status!

With your line of thinking - every judge is directly responsible for the pain they inflict on the accused through their judgments. Did I get that right? Do you really believe judges are responsible?
You think if a creator existed he is causing pain without reason! Why would he do that?
This is why, I would say - you did something wrong! Your premise is wrong that you were born sinless! IMO

I love it, you are now trying to excuse your God's evil behavior.

 

[ppp]

It it not a hangover?

It is

 

[sayak83]

Honestly, this is only a problem to begin with if we presume that characteristics must be beneficial to be inherited. Isn't that so?

It leads to the apparently absurd thesis that this rich and complex phenomenology of first person access consciousness is just an accidental development with no benefits or reasons.

 

[firedragon]

It is

So it will probably vanish in the future!