If there were no God

  • Thread starter Thread starter clarkgamble1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(1) Animal pain is real, but animal pain is not human suffering. There is something categorically different. To say otherwise means we anthropomorphize animals. And even then, we have to distinguish between animals.

(2) As far as anyone knows, pain is necessary for creatures existing in a limited and physical universe. It seems pain is required for survival in the current biological world.

(3) There is good reason to think animals and creation in general will be part of the “New Heavens and New Earth.” After all, Heaven is not some merely spiritual state. Christianity teaches that Heaven (the “afterlife”) is better described as transformed creation – a transformed Universe. Perhaps this will include the resurrection of animal life without pain.
 
TheOldColonel said:
Even the ancients tell us that God’s law is “written on our hearts.” Are scientists now also confirming this divine authorship? 😎
Click to expand...
No, scientists are looking at reasons to explain the widespread belief in spiritual beings of thousands of different sorts. One hypothesis is that a god or gods has implanted faith in people. Another possibility is that after the development of consciousness such beliefs conferred an evolutionary advantage, or were associated with some other advantage. The first hypothesis is not ‘falsifiable’ that is, you cannot think of any possible fact that would make it false. It is therefore no something science can address. The second is falsifiable, for example by the discovery that religious belief, when measured in some as yet undeveloped way differs qualitatively between individuals and is therefore not genetic in origin.
 
catholic1seeks said:
There is good reason to think animals and creation in general will be part of the “New Heavens and New Earth.” After all, Heaven is not some merely spiritual state. Christianity teaches that Heaven (the “afterlife”) is better described as transformed creation – a transformed Universe. Perhaps this will include the resurrection of animal life without pain.
Click to expand...
But animals, the Church teaches, have no immortal souls. So they cannot be resurrected. A hippo created in the likeness of one that suffered throughout its life its of no help to the original, chewed up by a crocodile.
 
Well, that actually gets to the point of it: animals are not “selves” in the way humans are. Animal consciousness is based in their perceptual awareness whereas human self-consciousness transcends that (I am walking around; I am thinking; This is my body; etc.).

To put it bluntly, animals aren’t really individuals in the same sense humans are individuals, and that partly helps to show how our cry of alleged injustice is based on anthropomorphizing animals.

That being said, God being all-powerful could certainly resurrect animals – revive their past physical constituents, brain memory, and so forth.

Still, there is no reason for us to say animals or any biological reality – even humans – are owed eternal life. The physical evils endured by animals and humans are unfortunate, but they in themselves don’t disprove God or even a loving God. We aren’t owed Heaven.
 
Last edited:
Given your premise, perhaps you are right. However, the one thing that would be MORE difficult to explain is the meaning of life. Put another way, any meaning attributed to life would have to be provided by us humans.
 
Last edited:
But despite words or acts of self-denial, or perhaps because of them, we humans think we are owed something for our moral behavior, don’t we? The truth of the matter may be otherwise.
 
And that psychologically and possibly also genetically motivated search for order and purpose in our sometimes chaotic lives means that such order does exist in the universe? Perhaps it does or perhaps it is wishful thinking. We have to choose between a life of truth beyond superficial reality or a sadder but wiser existence.
 
Last edited:
One very promising view of this is that we are created by the God of Israel to know Him, to love him and to serve Him. If one is so disposed, this makes temporal life a joy - even in suffering - and eternity indescribably better.

The devils’ advocate: What if there is no eternity? First, eternity is perceptible if one has ever waited for service in a government office.

On the other hand, temporal joy must have a foundation, a purpose, an end point, should it not? Otherwise it is mere emotion, and emotions wax and wane as well as mislead.

Eternal life, as so well attested to, is the greatest of joys.
 
Last edited:
A certain jaundiced eye air to that, methinks. If we endeavor to grasp the concept of the transcendent, life becomes less of a bitter joke.
 
I agree with what you say here. I also have concluded that doubting is a part of faith and may even serve to strengthen it in the long run. And I think that the GOODNESS of mankind, if not its evil, is more difficult to explain without the existence of G-d.
LOL Great example that we already have in our temporal lives glimpses of eternity.
 
In another thread, a member asked about how to offer suffering up for the sake of others. He has difficulty grasping the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The answer is love. Pure, unadulterated love. Love desires the good of the “other.” Love does not count the cost.

It is so utterly simple that we often miss it completely.

Love.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Bradskii:
some clumps of atoms have evolved to become conscious parts of the universe.
Click to expand...
What is the mechanism by which non-conscious dead matter becomes conscious and self aware? Can consciousness be created in a laboratory ?
Click to expand...
  1. Y’all need abiogenesis to start. How did it start? Knock yourself out and win a prize. Anything on the top shelf. Aka: Don’t know. Feel free to insert the deity of your choice in the space provided.
  2. Consciousness developed via evolution. Self awareness is just a function of higher consciousness.
  3. AI? Well seeing as my iPhone appears to be a lot smarter than some people I know, then it’s just a matter of time.
 
catholic1seeks said:
(1) Animal pain is real, but animal pain is not human suffering. There is something categorically different. To say otherwise means we anthropomorphize animals. And even then, we have to distinguish between animals.

(2) As far as anyone knows, pain is necessary for creatures existing in a limited and physical universe. It seems pain is required for survival in the current biological world.

(3) There is good reason to think animals and creation in general will be part of the “New Heavens and New Earth.” After all, Heaven is not some merely spiritual state. Christianity teaches that Heaven (the “afterlife”) is better described as transformed creation – a transformed Universe. Perhaps this will include the resurrection of animal life without pain.
Click to expand...
As far as point 2 goes, it would be more accurate to say that pain is necessary for survival in the world that God created. He thought it was a good idea. Maybe He couldn’t think of any other way. I know I could.
 
The temporal world isn’t all that there is though or at least that’s how most Christians see it.
 
Bradskii said:
When I say ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in the context of getting us where we are now, I don’t mean morally good or evil per se. Not running away from tigers is bad for survival but not evil.

For morality to evolve you need empathy so you can understand what other people are feeling and reciprocal altruism so you tend to help each other. You not helping people while others are could mean ostracism. And we have evolved emotions such as pride and shame which shape our actions. You try to avoid bad feelings like shame and are tempted to act in ways which will make you proud. We don’t necessarily do these things consciously.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I don’t see how history has resulted in a morality based on purely what is best for a society though. If our survival and the survival of our tribe is all that matters, why does almost everyone agree that eugenics are evil, and that we should care for people even when they will be a burden to society? Society would be better off without them, and our ancestors recognised this, yet our morality has not evolved to submit to their way of life.
Bradskii said:
And from your description are you not lacking sympathy rather than empathy?
Click to expand...
The common way of defining empathy includes sympathy as a function of the emotional responding system. Of course, this is psychology and there are no set definitions everyone agrees with. Regardless of what you call it, the point is that my brain is underdeveloped to the point where another persons emotions does not activate the common response seen in a healthy well-developed brain.
 
Bradskii said:
As far as point 2 goes, it would be more accurate to say that pain is necessary for survival in the world that God created. He thought it was a good idea. Maybe He couldn’t think of any other way. I know I could.
Click to expand...
I’m glad we’re able to feel pain. I’m not sure which particular scenario you are referring to that has no pain, but at least any I have been able to conjure up have had some deep flaws that become apparent upon deeper thought.

However, I’m of the opinion that pain and suffering are inherently good things, in moderation, and mortification is an essential part of Catholicism, and indeed any major functioning philosophy in the world.
 
Theban said:
40.png
Bradskii:
As far as point 2 goes, it would be more accurate to say that pain is necessary for survival in the world that God created. He thought it was a good idea. Maybe He couldn’t think of any other way. I know I could.
Click to expand...
I’m glad we’re able to feel pain. I’m not sure which particular scenario you are referring to that has no pain, but at least any I have been able to conjure up have had some deep flaws that become apparent upon deeper thought.

However, I’m of the opinion that pain and suffering are inherently good things, in moderation, and mortification is an essential part of Catholicism, and indeed any major functioning philosophy in the world.
Click to expand...
Well, like my grandad used to say: if losing didn’t hurt so much then winning wouldn’t feel as good.
 
If you look at life from a modern viewpoint then eugenics is immoral. But that’s because we CAN look after grandma these days and not doing so exhibits a selfishness that people might find less than ideal. So we feel shame when we skip the visit to the old.people’s home.

But back when our sense of morality was being developed via the evolutionary process, leaving the toothless old bat at the last camp site was the sensible thing to do. Much better to feed the workers than someone who would just be a drain on resources.

My guess is that there would have been some sense of grief in doing so (especially from grandma’s perspective) but no sense of shame. It would have been morally neutral. Perhaps akin to the idea of euthanasia today. If dear old dad was dying and in great pain and asked you to please push the red button to bring it to an end, then there would be grief but no shame.

If you start applying evolutionary psychology in an attempt to work out why we act as we do, it’s always a good idea to think about how these actions affected us back when life was a lot more black and white.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top