The naturalist problem of suffering.

[leroy]

Why?

Because complex systems can’t evolve by random chance……… you need natural selection …….. otherwise you are claiming that an air plane evolved from a tornado in junk yard (borrowing from Hoyles analogy)

I will only support this claim with evidence if you ambiguously claim to disagree

Why? You already agreed with the basic mechanism.
Seems to me that now you are only opposing it because you don't like where it leads.

I’m asking you to change “a b c d” for real examples because I have the feeling that you don’t maen what I think you mean by “D” (I think I’m misunderstanding your analogy/point )

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the difference between you and I is that when I accuse you for being wrong or for using logical fancies, I can quote your exact words and explain your mistakes

No, you can't. And I also was willing to discuss this if you could show just a teensy tiny bit of honesty. There is no point in explaining things to people that are bound and determined not to understand.

I and everyone else showed you to be wrong. It is not our fault if you are the only one that cannot understand your errors.

 

[leroy]

That's because of your religious bias.
The difference, off course, is that 1 is a plausible mechanism that is KNOWN to occur, while 2 is merely religiously inspired imagination.

Well support your claims show me that “1” is known to occur, show me that complex useless stuff can evolve by natural selection (or whatever mechanism you believe in)………….. or is it an other case of “no I don’t have to support my claims because I am an atheist “

They are not.
I don't remember you show gods to be possible. Logically or otherwise.
Believing it does not make it so. Just because you can imagine something, does not mean it's actually possible.

I can imagine defying gravity, but that doesn't make it possible. Let alone plausible

Wrong, but you’re missing the point anyway

The point is that I admit that

1 there is suffering in the world, including suffering that seems to be Gratuitous

2 we shouldn´t expect to have Gratuitous suffering in the world if the universe was created by loving and all powerful God

3 therefore I admit that I can’t explain why is it that we have what seems to be Gratuitous suffering.

The point of the OP is that you as a naturalist can’t explain the origin of consciousness (including what we call conscious suffering)

Obviously my point will be refuted if you successfully show that useless complex stuff can evolve.

e.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well support your claims show me that “1” is known to occur, show me that complex useless stuff can evolve by natural selection (or whatever mechanism you believe in)………….. or is it an other case of “no I don’t have to support my claims because I am an atheist “



Wrong, but you’re missing the point anyway

The point is that I admit that

1 there is suffering in the world, including suffering that seems to be Gratuitous

Define "Gratuitous" and give examples.

2 we shouldn´t expect to have Gratuitous suffering in the world if the universe was created by loving and all powerful God

Why not? Of course if you give solid examples I may not need you to answer why not, but right now this is a claim that needs massive evidentiary support.

3 therefore I admit that I can’t explain why is it that we have what seems to be Gratuitous suffering.

Okay, you can't explain it. But right now it appears that you have just constructed another strawman. I cannot say for sure since you have been excessively vague again, but that is what I am leaning towards. I won't say "Strawman" quite yet, but it looks that way.

By the way, just a reminder, just because you claim "strawman" that is not a refutation. Neither is it one if I claim it. I will claim it if I can see a definite one and then you can likewise demand that I defend my strawman claim.

The point of the OP is that you as a naturalist can’t explain the origin of consciousness (including what we call conscious suffering)

We cannot explain it totally, but I do not see how that helps you in the least. This is right now only a "So what?" argument on our part. As phrased it can be refuted with just a "So what?"

Obviously my point will be refuted if you successfully show that useless complex stuff can evolve.

Now that does appear to be a strawman. It is refuted by the example of the sickle cell anemia mutation. Your argument shows that you do not understand evolution. In a nutshell what makes a mutation positive or negative very often relies upon the environment. It is not that "useless complex stuff can evolve'. It is rather "complex stuff can evolve, in one environment that will be a good thing. In another one the same change will be a bad thing". Your argument relies upon an oversimplified and also incorrect version of evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because complex systems can’t evolve by random chance………

You are just repeating your claim.
I asked why.

you need natural selection ……..

yes. And 1+1+1+1....+1 = huge number.

otherwise you are claiming that an air plane evolved from a tornado in junk yard (borrowing from Hoyles analogy)

PRATTs aren't going to help you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well support your claims show me that “1” is known to occur, show me that complex useless stuff can evolve by natural selection (or whatever mechanism you believe in)………….. or is it an other case of “no I don’t have to support my claims because I am an atheist “



Wrong, but you’re missing the point anyway

The point is that I admit that

1 there is suffering in the world, including suffering that seems to be Gratuitous

2 we shouldn´t expect to have Gratuitous suffering in the world if the universe was created by loving and all powerful God

3 therefore I admit that I can’t explain why is it that we have what seems to be Gratuitous suffering.

The point of the OP is that you as a naturalist can’t explain the origin of consciousness (including what we call conscious suffering)

Obviously my point will be refuted if you successfully show that useless complex stuff can evolve.

Suffering is an undesirable feeling. Therefor creatures have incentive to avoid it. This helps survivability.

Done.


It's not rocket science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your argument relies upon an oversimplified and also incorrect version of evolution.

Wow! How about that. That usually never happens in these conversations.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What would be the “survival advantage” for this conscious experience?............

Continuing to live.

The benefits of sickle cell anemia would still be there regardless of the existence of “conscious suffering”

People with the sickle cell trait have a relative resistance to malaria and are less likely to get the disease and less likely to die from the disease in areas where malaria is endemic. That last part is important in a discussion about natural selection.)

The "conscious suffering" in this case, is the trade-off for the survival advantage that the trait confers upon people living in areas where malaria is endemic.

In your OP you said:

"To suffer has no selective benefit, organisms like plants or invertebrates can react and prevent danger even though they don’t really suffer, the experience of suffering adds no selective benefit over simply “reacting”"

In the case of the sickle cell trait, experiencing conscious suffering does add selective benefit to people living in areas where malaria is endemic because that conscious suffering is tied to resistance to a deadly disease.

You seem to be confused, and I bet @Subduction Zone is making the sme mistake

1 yes something that causes conscious suffering could be beneficial (in the context of NS)

Ok. Sickle cell fits with this.

2 But conscious suffering itself doesn’t have any known benefits...................(this claim was supported with peer reviwed literture......... honestly waht else do you expect from me?)

Sure it does, as it helps us identify the things that cause us pain/harm/death so that we know to avoid them and hopefully continue living and creating offspring. It also helps us identify suffering in our loved ones and in other people and in other animals. It helps us make basic risk assessments. It helps us create aversions to things we know are dangerous to us.

I just noticed that above in post #265, you've now said, "The point of the OP is that you as a naturalist can’t explain the origin of consciousness (including what we call conscious suffering)"

Which seems to be a different topic of discussion from what we're talking about here.

Do you see the difference between 1 and 2?

I guess. But they both work.

 

[leroy]

No, you can't. And I also was willing to discuss this if you could show just a teensy tiny bit of honesty. There is no point in explaining things to people that are bound and determined not to understand.

I and everyone else showed you to be wrong. It is not our fault if you are the only one that cannot understand your errors.

Define "Gratuitous" and give examples.


Why not? Of course if you give solid examples I may not need you to answer why not, but right now this is a claim that needs massive evidentiary support.


Okay, you can't explain it. But right now it appears that you have just constructed another strawman. I cannot say for sure since you have been excessively vague again, but that is what I am leaning towards. I won't say "Strawman" quite yet, but it looks that way.

By the way, just a reminder, just because you claim "strawman" that is not a refutation. Neither is it one if I claim it. I will claim it if I can see a definite one and then you can likewise demand that I defend my strawman claim.

There is no massive evidentiary support; it is just that intuitively, it seems as though there is unnecessary (Gratuitous) suffering. Earthquakes Cancer or even the sting of bee, seem to be unnecessary events that cause suffering.

We cannot explain it totally, but I do not see how that helps you in the least. This is right now only a "So what?" argument on our part. As phrased it can be refuted with just a "So what?"

all I’m saying is that we currently don’t have naturalistic explanation for how consciousness evolved.

My only expectation is that you should admit that the origin of the consciousness is a true challenge for naturalism

and you seem to agree, so I don’t see the problem.


My point is that nether do naturalists nor theist can explain the existence of “conscious suffering”………. This is not suppose to be controversial this is hard question and we humans have very limited knowledge

Now that does appear to be a strawman. It is refuted by the example of the sickle cell anemia mutation. Your argument shows that you do not understand evolution. In a nutshell what makes a mutation positive or negative very often relies upon the environment. It is not that "useless complex stuff can evolve'. It is rather "complex stuff can evolve, in one environment that will be a good thing. In another one the same change will be a bad thing". Your argument relies upon an oversimplified and also incorrect version of evolution.

In the context of Natural Selection sickle cell anemia mutation is not useless, I still don’t understand why you keep bringing this example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no massive evidentiary support; it is just that intuitively, it seems as though there is unnecessary (Gratuitous) suffering. Earthquakes Cancer or even the sting of bee, seem to be unnecessary events that cause suffering.



all I’m saying is that we currently don’t have naturalistic explanation for how consciousness evolved.

My only expectation is that you should admit that the origin of the consciousness is a true challenge for naturalism

and you seem to agree, so I don’t see the problem.


My point is that nether do naturalists nor theist can explain the existence of “conscious suffering”………. This is not suppose to be controversial this is hard question and we humans have very limited knowledge



In the context of Natural Selection sickle cell anemia mutation is not useless, I still don’t understand why you keep bringing this example.

Are you going to get serious?

 

[leroy]

People with the sickle cell trait have a relative resistance to malaria and are less likely to get the disease and less likely to die from the disease in areas where malaria is endemic. That last part is important in a discussion about natural selection.)

The "conscious suffering" in this case, is the trade-off for the survival advantage that the trait confers upon people living in areas where malaria is endemic.

That is very interesting, but it is irrelevant, I honestly made my best effort in explaining to you why is this irrelevant

Sure it does, as it helps us identify the things that cause us pain/harm/death so that we know to avoid them and hopefully continue living and creating offspring. It also helps us identify suffering in our loved ones and in other people and in other animals. It helps us make basic risk assessments. It helps us create aversions to things we know are dangerous to us.

That has been addressed multiple times, long before organism evolved consciousness; they were already reacting to avoid pain/harm/death………. Worms already defend themselves from predators; they don’t need consciousness to do that

I just noticed that above in post #265, you've now said, "The point of the OP is that you as a naturalist can’t explain the origin of consciousness (including what we call conscious suffering)"

Which seems to be a different topic of discussion from what I am talking about here.

I corrected your quote, (correction in red letters)……….. you (not we) are talking about something completely different form the OP,

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is very interesting, but it is irrelevant, I honestly made my best effort in explaining to you why is this irrelevant

I don't see how it's irrelevant, and you haven't explained why, as far as I can see.

That has been addressed multiple times, long before organism evolved consciousness; they were already reacting to avoid pain/harm/death………. Worms already defend themselves from predators; they don’t need consciousness to do that

Not adequately, in my opinion. You've just dismissed it because there are other ways to feel pain. Which of course, doesn't make "conscious pain" useless.

There are many different ways to see, and many different types of eyes in many different types of organisms all over the planet. They can all "see" in various different ways that differ from each other in some ways and are similar in other ways. For instance, cows, cats, horses and deer have a reflective layer in their eyes that makes it easier for them to see at night. Human beings do not have this reflecting system so we can't see as well at night as a lot of other animals can. We don't see you saying, 'Well I can see well enough at night so those other types of eyes didn't need to evolve that way and so we can't explain it!" Because we can explain it, right? Or that this kind of eye is less useful than this other type of eye, so we can't explain it. Because you know that different types of eyes evolved in different populations, in different times and in different environments. What works in one environment won't necessarily be optimal in another environment.

It's the same for pain and the different ways that organisms experience and react to it.

I corrected your quote, (correction in red letters)……….. you (not we) are talking about something completely different form the OP,

The origin of consciousness is not the same thing as the usefulness of consciousness. And of course, consciousness and "conscious pain" are different things as well.

 

[joelr]

You think these scriptures don't speak of God of Israel influencing Persian king?

And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, in order to accomplish the word of Jehovah in the mouth of Jeremiah, Jehovah awakened the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia, and he caused a voice to pass throughout all his kingdom, and also in writing, saying, So says Cyrus the king of Persia, Jehovah the God of the heavens has given to me all the kingdoms of the earth, and He has laid a charge on me to build a house in Jerusalem to Him, that is in Judah. Who is among you of all His people? May Jehovah his God be with him, and let him go up.
2 Chr. 36:22-23
So says Jehovah to His anointed, to Cyrus, whom I have seized by his right hand, to subdue nations before him. Yea, I will open the loins of kings, to open the two leaved doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut.
Isa. 45:1

Why do you feel that I think that? Yahweh praises Cyrus and calls him a servant of Yahweh. Because the Persians were good to the Israelites.

Now this has no bearing on anything. The Persians did indeed have myths that were not in Judaism and after the occupation, they were part of Judaism. That isn't complicated. Dr John Collins does some really good Divinity lectures about evidence of influence, but it's not hard to see.

Mary Boyce mentions Cyrus as well:

"1st Persian influence on Judaism


Cyrus' actions were, moreover, those of a loyal Mazda-worshipper, in that he sought to govern his vast new empire justly and well, in accordance with asha. He made no attempt, however, to impose the Iranian religion on his alien subjects - indeed it would have been wholly impractical to attempt it, in view of their numbers, and the antiquity of their own faiths - but rather encouraged them to live orderly and devout lives according to their own tenets. Among the many anarya who experienced his statesmanlike kindness were the Jews, whom he permitted to return from exile in Babylon and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This was only one of many liberal acts recorded of Cyrus, but it was of particular moment for the religious history of mankind; for the Jews entertained warm feelings thereafter for the Persians, and


this made them the more receptive to Zoroastrian influences. Cyrus • himself is hailed by 'Second Isaiah' (a nameless prophet of the Exilic period) as a messiah, that is, one who acted in Yahweh's name and with his authority. 'Behold my servant whom I uphold' (Yahweh himself is represented as saying). '(Cyrus) will bring forth justice to the nations. . . . He will not fail . . . till he has established justice in the earth' (Isaiah 42. I, 4). The same prophet celebrates Yahweh for the first time in Jewish literature as Creator, as Ahura Mazda had been celebrated by Zoroaster: 'I, Yahweh, who created all things ... I made the earth, and created man on it .... Let the skies rain down justice ... I, Yahweh, have created it' (Isaiah 44.24, 45. 8, 12). The parallels with Zoroastrian doctrine and scripture are so striking that these verses have been taken to represent the first imprint of that influence which Zoroastrianism was to exert so powerfully on postExilic Judaism. "




But the Persians already had a religion with saviors (virgin born), the Revelation myth, freewill for humans to choose good over bad, God being uncreated and many other ideas that then found their way into Christianity.

The scripture doesn't say Yahweh told Cyrus theological secrets that he has never told any Israelite, that would be ridiculous.



The influence on Judaism and Christianity, from Mary Boyce's perspective"


Doctrines


fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cyrus' actions were, moreover, those of a loyal Mazda-worshipper, in that he sought to govern his vast new empire justly and well, in accordance with asha. He made no attempt, however, to impose the Iranian religion on his alien subjects - indeed it would have been wholly impractical to attempt it, in view of their numbers, and the antiquity of their own faiths - but rather encouraged them to live orderly and devout lives according to their own tenets.

Wow, Mazda. I never knew. I have always been a Ford man

 

[joelr]

Wow, Mazda. I never knew. I have always been a Ford man

The Persians were way ahead of their time!

 

[1213]

...The parallels with Zoroastrian doctrine and scripture are so striking that these verses have been taken to represent the first imprint of that influence which Zoroastrianism was to exert so powerfully on postExilic Judaism. "...
...The scripture doesn't say Yahweh told Cyrus theological secrets that he has never told any Israelite, that would be ridiculous....

I believe what the Bible tells. And to me it means, Yahweh influenced Cyrus and is probably the reason for the similarities between Judaism and Zoroastrianism. It means, probably neither of them copied, they had just the same source for certain information.

 

[joelr]

I believe what the Bible tells. And to me it means, Yahweh influenced Cyrus and is probably the reason for the similarities between Judaism and Zoroastrianism. It means, probably neither of them copied, they had just the same source for certain information.

Whatever you need to justify your beliefs.

Yahweh didn't bother to tell the OT writers about souls that go to Heaven, Satan was at war with YAhweh, the end times battle where everyone gets resurrected in a paradise on Earth, freewill so we can choose our fate and many more......he told the Persians, who occupied Israel and were NOT his chosen people?

That doesn't make sense at all. What makes sense is they were influenced by the Persians and worked their theology into Judaism over centuries.
Why do you believe what a book says over evidence?

 

[1213]

...What makes sense is they were influenced by the Persians and worked their theology into Judaism over centuries.
Why do you believe what a book says over evidence?

I don't think we have any evidence for your claim to be true.

 

[joelr]

I don't think we have any evidence for your claim to be true.

Of course there is evidence, why else would I say it?
There are many scholars who study this period, here are 2 examples, John Collins gives several Divinity lectures at Yale about the Persian influence, here is one:

Old Testament Interpretation


Professor John J. Collins

12:10 a possible inspiration for Ezekiel treatment of dead (valley of bones) was Persian myth


14:20 resurrection of dead in Ezekiel, incidentally resurrection of the dead is also attested in Zoroastrianism, the Persians had it before the Israelites. There was no precent for bodily resurrection in Israel before this time. No tradition of bodies getting up from the grave. The idea of borrowing can be suggested.


In Ezekiel this is metaphorical.


The only book that clearly refers to bodily resurrection is Daniel.

17:30 resurrection of individual and judgment in Daniel, 164 BC. Prior to this the afterlife was Sheol, now heaven/hell is introduced. Persian period. Resurrection and hell existed in the Persian religion.
Resurrection of spirit. Some people are raised up to heaven, some to hell. New to the OT.


Mary Boyce was the leading scholar to study the early Persian religion. From one of her books, here she sums up the doctrines taken by the Israelites from the Persian religion:


Doctrines

fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.

 

[blü 2]

Well the difference between you and I is that when I accuse you for being wrong or for using logical Fallacies, I can quote your exact words and explain your mistakes

Your question was

So ill simply ask the naturalist, if we are product of evolution, why do we even suffer? Why did suffering evolved?

And I gave you a considered reply about how suffering evolved and how suffering is a natural part of being alive and surviving.

It's still there, #104.

You've never responded to it. Did you overlook it? Perish the thought that you didn't reply because you found it inconvenient.