The “naturalist” Problem of Suffering

[idea]

Does everything have inner experiences?

From entangled atoms to general relativity - it is quite different in the quantum level, and different again at large length scales. Inner? Outer? Length and time are relative. Our intuition only applies to classical length scales. Most agree information cannot be destroyed. It's all there, recorded in all length and time scales. Everything exists in its present state due to all the environmental factors that led up to where it now is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

And I have shown your mistakes countless times. You simply ignore the corrections. You keep blaming others in this way. You say "show me where I am wrong" they show you and then you claim that it never happened. You still do not understand why you lost the WLC arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nature happens in cycles. Spring, winter, birth, death. When it is time to slow down and become more careful in everything, nature slows us down. Survival happens through new life replacing the older models, just how it works.

Well there is a champion non sequitur.

 

[leroy]

And I have shown your mistakes countless times. You simply ignore the corrections. You keep blaming others in this way. You say "show me where I am wrong" they show you and then you claim that it never happened. You still do not understand why you lost the WLC arguments.

Ok, next time please try to show that I am wrong with actual arguments and proper documentation, rather than “you are wrong because I say so”

(dont forgget to quote the actual mistake BTW)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, next time please try to show that I am wrong with actual arguments and proper documentation, rather than “you are wrong because I say so”

Sorry, but I already have done that. You simply deny instead of asking for support when you do not understand. That is what you did with the WLC argument. When I pointed out the obvious, that he was making a logical argument and that a failed premise, something that you admitted to, occurs then the argument is not valid. That is such basic logic that there is no need to support that unless the person one is arguing with has no understanding of logic at all.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You dont seem to understand the issue. I am making a distinction between conscious pain and uncurious pain (simple reacting)………. The point that I made is that uncurious pain is enough to get all the selective benefits that you mentioned. For example a tree would produce corrosive chemicals is someone is trying to “harm it” trees already have this ability….. trees don’t feel conscious pain, they simply react such that such chemicals are liberated to avoid “harm”, if trees evolve an extra layer of complexity and develop the ability of feeling conscious pain that wouldn’t represent an extra advantage to the tree………the tree would be equally likely to survive and reproduce with or without the conscious pain. So why would this extra layer of complexity evolve and be selected by natural selection if it doesnt add any advantage?

I don't know what uncurious pain is. I would have guessed that you meant unconscious pain, except that you wrote uncurious twice, and unconscious pain is an oxymoron anyway. There is no pain without consciousness.

And I already explained to you the evolutionary advantage of feeling certain pains. It seems that you don't see the selective advantage of consciousness itself if you think the tree example is relevant. Inanimate objects don't benefit from pain, and unconscious ones can't experience it. This is the problem that results when you don't address the argument made. You're repeating comments about the lack of benefit of suffering already rebutted.

I wrote, " If you think that my counter-argument is flawed, please advise where and how. What specific statement do you say is incorrect? If none, then can we agree that this mater has been resolved? Please address this paragraph. Am I correct? Have I convinced you that you were wrong? If not, which part, and why. Thank you in advance." Did you read that? You failed to address the rebuttal despite twice being politely urged to do so, so this discussion has reached a resting place. It is over until you address my rebuttal, which defeats your claim that suffering is unnecessary and would confer no selective advantage.

I tried to explain this to you on the last thread. The debate ends with the last plausible, unrebutted argument. I have nothing to add to my argument, nor do you it appears, so it's over. What you are doing is dissenting without rebutting, which is not helpful. Nothing you posted contradicts my last post. I just don't want to get into another interchange where I am repeating myself and you are failing to address what was said to you. There's nothing in doing that for either of us.

Let's move on since you won't rebut. I have no ill will for you, just a desire not to repeat that sterile cycle that results when dialectic ends. You recall how after about forty posts, we got no further than my rebuttal there, either. I was hoping to show you how to do better, but I guess I didn't, because here we are again.

 

[BrightShadow]

I was born sinless. In fact I may have never sinned.

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

Now it appears that you are trying to claim that your God is immoral again by giving us pains without telling us why.

Short answer is "pop quiz".
What is so immoral about it? You could be tested anyway a creator chooses! For your sake - it is better to concentrate on passing the test. IMO

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

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

Short answer is "pop quiz".
What is so immoral about it? You could be tested anyway a creator chooses! For your sake - it is better to concentrate on passing the test. IMO

It would of course depend upon the God that we are talking about. If a God has all of the typical "omnis" that some believers claim then God is directly responsible for all pain. If God was more akin to Odin or Zeus then some of his actions would be excusable.

 

[Koldo]

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.

 

[Koldo]

Actually this the sub-issue within a much bigger problem.

Why would evolutionary mechanism lead to development of beings that have first person experiential awareness fields? What does having inner subjective experiences add to the processing of external stimuli through the usual neuro-chemical pathways of the brain and the nervous system?

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

 

[Magic Man]

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 know I'm very late to the game here, so this has probably already been covered, but this misses the entire point of the problem of evil/suffering and therefore makes no sense.

The point of The Problem of Evil is that the most popular theistic god is supposedly all-good and all-loving. It's specifically those attributes that cause the problem. Why would a supreme being who is all-good and all-loving allow evil or suffering? It wouldn't.

Since atheists don't believe in a god, there is no such problem for us to account for.

 

[leroy]

I don't know what uncurious pain is. I would have guessed that you meant unconscious pain, except that you wrote uncurious twice, and unconscious pain is an oxymoron anyway. There is no pain without consciousness.

And I already explained to you the evolutionary advantage of feeling certain pains. It seems that you don't see the selective advantage of consciousness itself if you think the tree example is relevant. Inanimate objects don't benefit from pain, and unconscious ones can experience it. This is the problem that results when you don't address the argument made. You're repeating comments about the lack of benefit of suffering already rebutted.

I wrote, " If you think that my counter-argument is flawed, please advise where and how. What specific statement do you say is incorrect? If none, then can we agree that this mater has been resolved? Please address this paragraph. Am I correct? Have I convinced you that you were wrong? If not, which part, and why. Thank you in advance." Did you read that? You failed to address the rebuttal despite twice being politely urged to do so, so this discussion has reached a resting place. It is over until you address my rebuttal, which defeats your claim that suffering is unnecessary and would confer no selective advantage.

I tried to explain this to you on the last thread. The debate ends with the last plausible, unrebutted argument. I have nothing to add to my argument, nor do you it appears, so it's over. What you are doing is dissenting without rebutting, which is not helpful. Nothing you posted contradicts my last post. I just don't want to get into another interchange where I am repeating myself and you are failing to address what was said to you. There's nothing in doing that for either of us.

Let's move on since you won't rebut. I have no ill will for you, just a desire not to repeat that sterile cycle that results when dialectic ends. You recall how after about forty posts, we got no further than my rebuttal there, either. I was hoping to show you how to do better, but I guess I didn't, because here we are again.

I wrote, " If you think that my counter-argument is flawed, please advise where and how

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.

Please address this paragraph.

Whatever promotes reproduction is selected for, and this includes surviving to reproductive age. Organisms that suffer pain to let them know that the surface they are walking on will cause serious tissue damage will out-survive and out-reproduce those that cannot.

I did, in your paragraph you didn’t seem to appreciate that “felling pain” is not necessary to get those selective benefits, you can get those benefits even if you don’t feel pain (all you need is a reaction) which I labeled as unconscious pain

An organism that reacts and avoids walking in a hot surface would have the exact same benefit that the organism that avoids the hot surface and also feels pain ….. feeling pain doesn’t add any benefit, all you need is a reaction (I label it as unconscious pain )



Even the OP anticipated that rebuttal and you didn’t address it.

So to be clear, I think that you are wrong because you seemed to ignore the fact that all the benefits of feeling pain can be obtained by simply reacting and avoiding harm. (you don’t need this extra layer of complexity)

 

[stvdv]

You can have all of it. Enjoy yourself.

Making jokes is indeed 1 way of coping

 

[Alien826]

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.

Suffering is not useless. Let's take pain as an example.

I suffer an injury. It hurts. I try to avoid getting injured again. Some people are born with no ability to feel pain. This is a bad thing, because they are always hurting themselves with realizing it.

How about hunger? Not painful, but certainly uncomfortable. I don't eat, I feel hungry, I find food and eat it. If I didn't feel hunger, I might starve to death, or at least look for food less energetically than a creature that did.

In the natural world, there is no incentive to avoid suffering in others, outside close relatives and so on. A predator sees its prey as a potential meal and has no concept of the prey creature's suffering. As far as the prey is concerned, all it needs is the built in instinct to survive. The suffering is incidental, though possibly related.

It all makes perfect sense until you introduce the concept of a benevolent designer, who could have created a world without predation (and so on). That would require some other mechanism to limit the number of creatures, but that's not so difficult for an omniscient creator, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

But that claim of yours was rebutted. The selection advantage comes from an organisms ability to learn and avoid the destructive stimulus in the future. You had to response to that.

Once again, this is an example of how you were clearly shown to be wrong and yet you ignored the rebuttal.

 

[leroy]

I
Since atheists don't believe in a god, there is no such problem for us to account for.

Well the OP post explains why is it that atheist also have to account for this problem……………namely why did ability to suffer evolved if such a mechanism is useless and complex

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the OP post explains why is it that atheist also have to account for this problem……………namely why did ability to suffer evolved if such a mechanism is useless and complex

It has been explained. You may not have understood the explanations.

 

[Alien826]

So to be clear, I think that you are wrong because you seemed to ignore the fact that all the benefits of feeling pain can be obtained by simply reacting and avoiding harm. (you don’t need this extra layer of complexity)

I skipped pages of posts and answered the OP directly. I'll answer this though.

In general, something is selected for because it "works" better than an existing alternative. By "works" I mean enables the genes that code for that particular feature to increase their percentage in the gene pool. Evolution doesn't consider all kinds of alternatives and then decide on the best one. It tries lots of alternatives and some survive better than others.

So the answer to why we feel pain rather than simply reacting is that at some time in the past, pain proved to be a better alternative. Why? I don't know, though I can make an educated guess. That is that a creature that simply reacts will probably survive in some environments (for some reason I'm thinking of jellyfish) but it misses out on all the benefits of consciousness. A conscious being can override the reaction, which may be a better or worse thing depending on the circumstances. Pain tends to force us to react rather than deliberate. Have you put your hand on something very hot? Remember how your hand jerks away without your consciously willing it? But sometimes we need to override pain for our benefit. And we don't design spaceships by simply reacting to things. It's all a balance, and somewhere in the past that balance "worked" well for us. That's all.

 

[leroy]

But that claim of yours was rebutted. The selection advantage comes from an organisms ability to learn and avoid the destructive stimulus in the future. You had to response to that.

Once again, this is an example of how you were clearly shown to be wrong and yet you ignored the rebuttal.

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

 

[HonestJoe]

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

I think you're still caught up on the idea this all has a plan and a purpose. There is no pre-determined "why" anything happens in evolution. Put very simply, evolutionary changes essentially happen at random and either work or don't work, depending on how beneficial they are to that species in their given environments and circumstances. It doesn't matter if other lines of species develop different or even better ways to survive particular issues or threats, as long as the traits of any single species are more effective than the ones they had previously, those traits will likely propagate in that species.

Neither pain nor consciousness evolved in trees (or any plants), they evolved in some types of animals (which ultimately evolved in to the mammals, birds and reptiles of today I mentioned). Those traits survived and propagated because they did give a survival advantage to those species (even though the traits have downsides and imperfections). How trees and plants, even other animals, evolved over the same period has zero direct relevance.

This is why such a vast diversity of species, some extremely different despite living in similar environments and some very similar despite living in quite different ones.