The naturalist problem of suffering.

[Unfettered]

In this context I’m talking about conscious mental state that we dislike, this is what I men by suffering.

The word “conscious” is relevant in this definition.



My only point is that both questions are valid, and lack good satisfactory answer.

1 why would loving God allow all this suffering in humans and animals

2 why/HOW did evolution (mutation + natural selection) selected something s complex and useless like our ability to suffer

Thank you for defining "suffering." Nature doesn't care about the why or how of suffering. In fact, nature doesn't even understand the question. Nature doesn't even know you asked the question. In the naturalist framework, everything exists because it does—there is no "why" to any of it. This applies both to nature as a whole and to its constituent parts. Significance or purpose is 100% incidental. If a foot evolves and whatever it is attached to finds it useful, then the foot has purpose. Otherwise it does not. Purpose is always incidental in the naturalist framework. Suffering is no different. Its utility is wholly incidental to is existence.

As to how things evolved, in the naturalist framework things come into being however they come into being. IE, it does not matter. Because in the naturalist framework, the evolutionary persistence of the thing is what determines "how" the thing evolves, or how it is "selected." And even evolutionary persistence is determined by incidental forces—nothing more. For nature can select all kinds of useful functions today and destroy every single one of them tomorrow when a star goes supernova and incinerates the planet on which those functions are found. Why? Because.

Nature is entirely indifferent to the questions of "why" and "how." Nature doesn't care, and it blinks at you blankly as you ask.

 

[crossfire]

Another observation when it comes to suffering and nature: in species that can reproduce both asexually and sexually, asexual reproduction is favored when conditions are favorable and unstressed. Sexual reproduction is favored in times of stress (suffering.) Populations from asexual reproduction are fragile and the whole population may get wiped out by a virus or other stress, whereas populations from sexual reproduction are more resilient.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

plants and bacteria react in such way that they avoid unpleasant experiences, but they don’t actually suffer in conscious way………. Only a small portion of complex animals with complex brains experience actual conscious suffering. So Why did we evolved from creatures that already avoid dysphorias , in to organisms that avoid dysphorias and can suffer.?

The word dysphoria implies consciousness and suffering. Plants and bacteria don't have minds or consciousness, and thus don't experience euphorias or dysphoria. It wouldn't confer evolutionary advantage for a tree to suffer, since a tree can't and doesn't need to make decisions. Your claim was that suffering doesn't do that even in animals, but that is incorrect. The existence of suffering is not an argument against evolution, but the existence of gratuitous suffering is evidence against the existence of a tri-omni god.

If you choose to respond, remember that I am not interested in what you believe that's different from my beliefs, but why you think mine are wrong if in fact that's what you believe. That means that I need you to explain why any given claim in that paragraph is incorrect according to you. For example, if you think trees are conscious, that's a contradictory position to mine and you would need to explain how I am wrong about that and how you can know that.

What has no value to or interest for me is just about any other kind of response you might post. When you tell me what you think and I disagree, I tell you what I think you wrote is wrong and why. That's dialectic, and nothing else furthers the discussion. If you don't engage what you read with rebuttal, it doesn't matter what else it is.

You don't do that normally, and I'm not interested in making the same point more than once. Please rebut the above if you find a flaw there, or move on. Mere dissent without rebuttal is assumed but of no value in dialectic and represents the end of the process. It ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim, which right now is mine. If you attempt to falsify it, then we can discuss your argument. Just so that you understand, anything else is pointless and signals the end of this discussion for me.

 

[danieldemol]

2 why/HOW did evolution (mutation + natural selection) selected something s complex and useless like our ability to suffer

Are you suggesting humans have had greater reproductive success than trees?
There are 3.04 trillion trees and only 8.1 billion people, which means even if your strawman definition of natural selection were true NS has clearly favoured trees over humans anyway.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Useless complex stuff is not expected to evolve naturally, the mechanism of mutation + natural selection is unlikely build and keep something useless and complex

I would not agree with that. Do you know what a spandrel is?

Humans are the only animal to have a chin. Even our closest relatives, the chimpanzees and bonobos don't. Now, why do you think the chin evolved in humans?

My view is that it isn't actually "for" any purpose at all -- it's just a leftover, a spandrel, an evolutionary byproduct left from another feature changing. In the chin’s case, it could be the result of the human face shrinking over time as our posture changed and our faces shortened, or a remnant from a period of longer jaws.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The word dysphoria implies consciousness and suffering. Plants and bacteria don't have minds or consciousness, and thus don't experience euphorias or dysphoria. It wouldn't confer evolutionary advantage for a tree to suffer, since a tree can't and doesn't need to make decisions. Your claim was that suffering doesn't do that even in animals, but that is incorrect. The existence of suffering is not an argument against evolution, but the existence of gratuitous suffering is evidence against the existence of a tri-omni god.

^^^^^^^^^^^
How beautifully well-said! Bravo!

 

[Link]

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

My argument is based on 3 premises

1 useless complex things re not expected to evolve

2 to suffer is a complex mental state (complex brains are needed)

3 to suffer is useless (from the point of view of N Selection)

The skeptic is expected to refute one of these premises.

From the point of the paradigm of evolutionist, they say suffering is useful because the natural world requires it. However, it does not refute the problem of evil because God didn't need to create the world in the state it is now. So it's only useful in the paradigm of the world as we know it. And we believe that, which is why the fall of Adam (a) is part of the explanation.

So in my view, God knows best how to explain why there is suffering. It's not so easy to say it's useful and thus it's not evil. It's only useful if God doesn't have much alternative choices in the matter.

 

[F1fan]

From the point of the paradigm of evolutionist, they say suffering is useful because the natural world requires it. However, it does not refute the problem of evil because God didn't need to create the world in the state it is now.

Yet according to Abrahamics what exists, and how it exists, is all due to your God. Your God is responsible for everything.

So it's only useful in the paradigm of the world as we know it. And we believe that, which is why the fall of Adam (a) is part of the explanation.

This is problematic since the Adam story isn't true. There is no way to interpret it as representative of real events, so it's not relevant to describe reality and the natural world.

So in my view, God knows best how to explain why there is suffering. It's not so easy to say it's useful and thus it's not evil. It's only useful if God doesn't have much alternative choices in the matter.

Alas your God is absent and all believers have is a few books that are vague and require too much interpretation. Since you believers are no more perfect than anyone else what makes your guesses correct versus the guesses of other believers? Use the Bible and Quran at your own peril because you won't find absolute truth in either.

 

[Link]

Yet according to Abrahamics what exists, and how it exists, is all due to your God. Your God is responsible for everything.

From one perspective yes. From another perspective, evil is from creation and mainly due to our own faults.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it is true by definition.

Natural selection by definition, selects stuff that has benefit

I see, you are trying to compare your idea to natural selection. Now we know where you got that false idea from.

No, the reason that natural selection is "trivially true" is because it is so extremely easy to confirm with example after example. Yet you cannot do that at all with your claim in the OP. You probably cannot even think of a proper way to test your disputed claim in the OPl.

I can now see why you resisted so strongly to define "trivially true". When you are pushed to support your claims you have a history of refuting yourself.

 

[Link]

Since you believers are no more perfect than anyone else what makes your guesses correct versus the guesses of other believers?

Believers are indeed distinct from disbelievers by a high level and big difference in nature, while the hypocrites (who are with believers and disbelievers can't distinguish them from believers) are in the lowest fire.

 

[F1fan]

From one perspective yes. From another perspective, evil is from creation and mainly due to our own faults.

Nope, God created evil for no reason whatsoever that is explained. God had the option not to, but did. The whole human blaming thing is all Abrahamics can come up with to protect the poor judgment of Yahweh. Humans should take their dignity back and accuse Yahweh of being flawed and unworthy of worship. Humans are vastly better than God in many ways.

Believers are indeed distinct from disbelievers by a high level and big difference in nature, while the hypocrites (who are with believers and disbelievers can't distinguish them from believers) are in the lowest fire.

I suggest unbelievers have the advantage of not making religious assumptions, and trying to make sense of religious lore. To be a believer means being confused and unable to reconcile reality from the adopted religious framework any believer is stuck with. We have seen you ongoing struggles with islam in this forum, and that testimony reminds me how fortunate I am to be an atheist.

 

[Link]

Nope, God created evil for no reason whatsoever that is explained. God had the option not to, but did. The whole human blaming thing is all Abrahamics can come up with to protect the poor judgment of Yahweh. Humans should take their dignity back and accuse Yahweh of being flawed and unworthy of worship. Humans are vastly better than God in many ways.


I suggest unbelievers have the advantage of not making religious assumptions, and trying to make sense of religious lore. To be a believer means being confused and unable to reconcile reality from the adopted religious framework any believer is stuck with. We have seen you ongoing struggles with islam in this forum, and that testimony reminds me how fortunate I am to be an atheist.

This is not about my explanation though. I've done that through out the years, explained the problem of evil and my theodicy.

I was saying to the OP, his solution doesn't refute the argument from evil. I've done threads explaining problem of evil. You can join those and try to refute what I wrote there.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

From one perspective yes. From another perspective, evil is from creation and mainly due to our own faults.

The latter is the perspective of the Abrahamic apologist who simply can never say at any time in any way that reality isn't how his faith depicts it. He's a motivated reasoner (rationalizer), reading scripture closed-mindedly through a confirmation bias that shows him only what he has decided a priori is true.

He can NEVER say that his god allows evil without saying that it is good that it does (just punishment for sin) or that it isn't responsible. Neither of these comport with humanist ethics and values, which promotes critical thinking and rational ethics. The law recognizes liability in a human being who makes foreseeable harm possible or fails to act to prevent it. So do I: "Criminal negligence (sometimes called culpable negligence) refers to a defendant who acts in disregard of a serious risk of harm that a reasonable person in the same situation would have perceived."

Believers are indeed distinct from disbelievers by a high level and big difference in nature, while the hypocrites (who are with believers and disbelievers can't distinguish them from believers) are in the lowest fire.

What's a high level in nature? What's a big difference in nature? What fire do you mean? Is that a reference to hell or perdition?

The main difference between theists and atheists are their criteria for belief and subsequently, their belief set, the former including supernaturalism and magical thinking, the latter preferring the method that rejects insufficiently supported claims including unfalsifiable religious beliefs - critical thinking.

 

[F1fan]

This is not about my explanation though. I've done that through out the years, explained the problem of evil and my theodicy.

I was saying to the OP, his solution doesn't refute the argument from evil. I've done threads explaining problem of evil. You can join those and try to refute what I wrote there.

The “problem with evil” explanations and arguments from religious perspectives resolves nothing, and tends to create more confusion and questions. The more believers try to make sense of reality and their religious beliefs the more they get backed into a corner.

The only viable solution is to not think about it. Or reject religious assumptions that are contrary to what we observe of the world. Believers try to have it both ways and it only creates confusion.

 

[Link]

We can talk about it abstractly, but I have threads about this @It Aint Necessarily So and @F1fan that go into the details . I can even make a new one organize my thoughts on this issue. But this thread, I was in agreement with you guys that it does not refute the problem of evil.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

My argument is based on 3 premises

1 useless complex things re not expected to evolve

2 to suffer is a complex mental state (complex brains are needed)

3 to suffer is useless (from the point of view of N Selection)

The skeptic is expected to refute one of these premises.

Personally, I find the issue of suffering to be a red herring as to any sort of religious belief - and this has never really influenced any of my thinking as to such beliefs. Apart, as an example, from the belief that desire often brings suffering as a playmate, and as to which I can accept. We are born into life - this life - and in the environment within which we evolved, and hence often suffer from the interactions between humans and/or other life or our environment - given that most humans usually have a multitude of different wants and/or aims, and so does much of non-human life. I think suffering has always been there in various ways since complex life formed and this will probably always be so too - unless we stop being human and become androids or such.

 

[1213]

The naturalist problem of suffering.

Probably the most sound and convincing argument against the existence of God, is the problem is the problem of suffering.

The argument goes s follows “if God exists why is there so much suffering in the world”?

My answer to this is, at the beginning everything was good, then people wanted to know evil and were expelled to this first death, that could be seen as the virtual reality in Matrix movie. We are here to learn what good and evil means. And those who learn well and become righteous, can go back to life. So, this life in Biblical point of view is just a short lesson where we can see what evil and good means. That is why we can see all kind of things that are not good.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.
Matt. 25:46

3 to suffer is useless (from the point of view of N Selection)

I think everything is useless in natural point of view. But, for N selection, suffering can be explained for example to be, because knowing suffering makes one to avoid things that cause suffering, which in turn helps one to survive.

 

[leroy]

Thank you for defining "suffering." Nature doesn't care about the why or how of suffering. In fact, nature doesn't even understand the question. Nature doesn't even know you asked the question. In the naturalist framework, everything exists because it does—there is no "why" to any of it. This applies both to nature as a whole and to its constituent parts. Significance or purpose is 100% incidental. If a foot evolves and whatever it is attached to finds it useful, then the foot has purpose. Otherwise it does not. Purpose is always incidental in the naturalist framework. Suffering is no different. Its utility is wholly incidental to is existence.

As to how things evolved, in the naturalist framework things come into being however they come into being. IE, it does not matter. Because in the naturalist framework, the evolutionary persistence of the thing is what determines "how" the thing evolves, or how it is "selected." And even evolutionary persistence is determined by incidental forces—nothing more. For nature can select all kinds of useful functions today and destroy every single one of them tomorrow when a star goes supernova and incinerates the planet on which those functions are found. Why? Because.

Nature is entirely indifferent to the questions of "why" and "how." Nature doesn't care, and it blinks at you blankly as you ask.

Nope ill say that the questions why and how something evolved are valid questions that are expected to be answered by the evolutionist

 

[leroy]

The word dysphoria implies consciousness and suffering.

Ok thanks for the correction

Plants and bacteria don't have minds or consciousness, and thus don't experience euphorias or dysphoria. It wouldn't confer evolutionary advantage for a tree to suffer, since a tree can't and doesn't need to make decisions. Your claim was that suffering doesn't do that even in animals, but that is incorrect.

My claim is that animals (and trees and bacteria) dont get an additional evolutionary advantage by developing the ability of suffering in a concious way.

Please let me know if you agree

The existence of suffering is not an argument against evolution,

Well the argument has been presented in op , feel free to refute it

but the existence of gratuitous suffering is evidence against the existence of a tri-omni god.

Ageee, as I made it clear in the op

If you choose to respond, remember that I am not interested in what you believe that's different from my beliefs, but why you think mine are wrong if in fact that's what you believe. That means that I need you to explain why any given claim in that paragraph is incorrect according to you. For example, if you think trees are conscious, that's a contradictory position to mine and you would need to explain how I am wrong about that and how you can know that.

What has no value to or interest for me is just about any other kind of response you might post. When you tell me what you think and I disagree, I tell you what I think you wrote is wrong and why. That's dialectic, and nothing else furthers the discussion. If you don't engage what you read with rebuttal, it doesn't matter what else it is.

You don't do that normally, and I'm not interested in making the same point more than once. Please rebut the above if you find a flaw there, or move on. Mere dissent without rebuttal is assumed but of no value in dialectic and represents the end of the process. It ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim, which right now is mine. If you attempt to falsify it, then we can discuss your argument. Just so that you understand, anything else is pointless and signals the end of this discussion for me.

I'll rather go back one step and sinply ask you to quote any point made by me that you disagree with (and explain why)


My argument is based on 2 premises

1 useless complex stuff are mot expected to evolve naturally.

2 the ability to experience conscious suffering is useless and complex.


So which of the 2 premises would you afirm are wrong
..