Morally justifiable pain, suffering and torture

[Benadam]

Not exactly. God’s “nature” is not the point of contention. God’s actions or the lack thereof is the point.

On my side it is a philosophical discussion. That is why I posted it in the Philosophy section and not in the Apologetic one. My point is that to call someone “good”, “loving” and “caring” is preposterous if that being commits or allows the events we can observe.

True.

Since no valid counter-arguments have been presented I refuted this one.

Aristotele may have been a genius in his time, but his ideas have long ago been superceeded.

Unacceptable. If a human being is called “good” for opening the door so that animals will not perish in a fire; and would be called “uncaring” or “indifferent” for failing to do so, then the same adjectives apply to God for similar behavior.

Whether God is a creator or not is of no relevance. A father who is the “creator” of his children has the same obligation. Just because he created his children does not absolve him from the responsibilities; on the very contrary - it makes his obligations even more serious!

Every ‘so called’ refutation on this post can be substantially summed up as; ’ I don’t like this answer ’ or ‘your God doesn’t meet my standards.’ Basically you either will not or cannot conceive of anything greater than yourself.

I wonder if you can describe what that would be like?

ateista, your arguments have no substance . You attempt to reduce the christian concept of God to a shallow human every time you are confronted with what we believe God is.

Very obvious pattern if anyone scrolls back to see.

 

[ateista]

ateista, you can never be sure when pain is “unnecessary” because you are not omniscient. You, like all of us, have a limited perspective.

I have answered this before objection in this thread. Please look it up.

 

[ateista]

Of course it is relevant. A certain response may be programmed into the brain of animals so that when a nerve senses hurt or pain it stimulated a howl and flight response. A complex mechanism is thereby put into play, but if there is no consciousness present to “feel” the pain, in a sense there is no pain, just stimulus-response - all quite mechanical.

That makes all the difference in the world as to whether the pain actually exists or not. Kind of like the “if a tree falls in the forest and the is no ONE there to hear it…” The sound is created in the mind of the observer by the brain - but if no mind, then no sound, just a response to the vibration. If no consciousness, then no pain, just an automatic response to the stimulus.

A complex robot could be programmed so that whenever something strikes it, it lets out a high pitched squeal and runs off. Would that mean it is actually “sensing” pain? No. This, in a much more complex way could be what is happening with animals. Certain intrusions on its sensory realm may trigger specific survival responses in very complex ways, ways that seem similar to human responses but without the awareness that is endemic to human beings.

Are you serious? Many humans, the mentally retarded and the very young children are incapable of understanding what happens to them when they are exposed to pain. They are unable to conceptualize. By the line of your reasoning it is perfectly all right to expose them to pain, since they cannot comprehend what happens to them.

 

[Caesar517]

I have answered this before objection in this thread. Please look it up.

You answer was this:

I don’t need to be omniscient. All I have to know that the painful way of perishing in a fire is not good for the animal so afflicted.

Your words are as narrow as your room for argument. You have a God complex. This argument is eternally circular because of that. I have pointed out what I believe to be the single biggest flaw in your thinking, but you ignore it. I think I’m done here.

 

[ateista]

Every ‘so called’ refutation on this post can be substantially summed up as; ’ I don’t like this answer ’ or ‘your God doesn’t meet my standards.’ Basically you either will not or cannot conceive of anything greater than yourself.

I wonder if you can describe what that would be like?

Incorrect. I can very well understand that there are many human beings who are superior to me. I can also imagine that there might be other beings in the Universe whose are far more advanced than even the most brilliant humans, compared to whom we are not even “apes”. I can imagine even God existing with all those attributes the believers describe.

ateista, your arguments have no substance . You attempt to reduce the christian concept of God to a shallow human every time you are confronted with what we believe God is.

Very obvious pattern if anyone scrolls back to see.

That is your opinion. Whether the Christian God exists or not is an open question. But if there is one, his moral obligations are the same as ours - if there is an objectively existing morality.

Even the ancient Greeks struggled with the following problem: “If something is good, is it good because God orders it, or does God order something because it is good?”. Think it over, this is a very serious problem.

Most believers would say that there is an objective “good” and God does things, because they are good. Only when confronted with the problem of evil - like this thread - will they change their mind, and start to assert that “good” is “defined” by God, and “good” does not exist apart from God’s will. They must resort to this tactics, because the problem presented cannot be solved, for them.

Now, the funny thing is that during this process the believers reduce their concept of God to a trivial “circulus viciosus”. The concept of God includes that “God is infinitely good, merciful and just”. Then when asked what is “good, merciful and just” they reply: “whatever God does” - thereby rendering their concept totally nonsensical.

 

[Dameedna]

But you have not proved animals are capable of suffering, pain is a different matter.

Have you ever stubbed your toe and it hurt?

Yes…animals are capable of suffering.

You are an animal by the way.

What proof do you require?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Are you serious? Many humans, the mentally retarded and the very young children are incapable of understanding what happens to them when they are exposed to pain. They are unable to conceptualize. By the line of your reasoning it is perfectly all right to expose them to pain, since they cannot comprehend what happens to them.

Persons are not treated like animals because persons are not animals. Period. Animals should be treated as much like persons as is their due relative to their value for persons without actually treating them like persons in fact.

Using THIS formulation of “why not to do certain pain-inducing things to some creature” reasoning is much more sensible, don’t you think!?

 

[Benadam]

Incorrect. I can very well understand that there are many human beings who are superior to me. I can also imagine that there might be other beings in the Universe whose are far more advanced than even the most brilliant humans, compared to whom we are not even “apes”. I can imagine even God existing with all those attributes the believers describe.

Easy to say you can imagine anything. I knew you would claim that ability. That’s why I asked for a demonstration. " what would it be like to meet someone greater than yourself. To clarify, if you can imagine what confronting good beyond your own would be like you can describe what it would be like. If you can’t do this then you aren’t up to this conversation about God because you refuse to accept a refutation from a perspective that a greater good than you can conceive exists.

That is your opinion. Whether the Christian God exists or not is an open question. But if there is one, his moral obligations are the same as ours - if

There are very sound answers to these ‘so called’ problems. These aren’t unsolved just unanswered by the christians you’ve had these discussions with.

 

[ateista]

Easy to say you can imagine anything. I knew you would claim that ability. That’s why I asked for a demonstration. " what would it be like to meet someone greater than yourself. To clarify, if you can imagine what confronting good beyond your own would be like you can describe what it would be like. If you can’t do this then you aren’t up to this conversation about God because you refuse to accept a refutation from a perspective that a greater good than you can conceive exists.

This is such an open ended question, that I cannot answer it. But I can tell you this: if I would meet God, I would ask the very same questions I am asking here. Moreover, I would accept only logical answers.

If you refuse to at least suspend your own belief for the sake of this dialogue then this dialogue is pointless and you can’t reasonably prove anything. Observed reality does not violate the christian view of God’s nature and you so far haven’t provided a reasonable argument that it does. So far your only argument is that observed reality violates your view of God’s nature which as you have pointed out often eneogh should be judged by creatures. God does provide for this but while we exist in a state of ‘becoming’ one thing or another, it is futile.

Makes no sense. You simply repeat that I am not qualified to ask the questions. That is not a dialog.

Even the ancient Greeks struggled with the following problem: “If something is good, is it good because God orders it, or does God order something because it is good?”. Think it over, this is a very serious problem.

Major BS. Show me how these alternatives are NOT mutually exclusive. Moreover, this dichotomy is the crux of the matter.

There are very sound answers to these ‘so called’ problems. These aren’t unsolved just unanswered by the christians you’ve had these discussions with.

I am here to listen. But no valid answers are forthcoming. Not even attempted.

The only “answers” are: “how dare you think that you can question God?” or “you are not omniscient and therefore you don’t qualify to make a judgment”, or “animals are lower creatures, and their fate does not matter”, or “animals don’t suffer”, and stuff like that. Of course I am not surprised.

 

[Benadam]

This is such an open ended question, that I cannot answer it. But I can tell you this: if I would meet God, I would ask the very same questions I am asking here. Moreover, I would accept only logical answers.
No offense ateista but whenever I have come across someone who presents the kind of argument you posted here I don’t see a view that doesn’t include God. I see a view that out of anger has judged God as evil and to satisfy a need for vengence say’s that God doesn’t exist. Someone who really doesn’t believe God exists doesn’t generally lean on arguments based on the perception among believers about God’s nature and behaviour.

That argument sounds like; God can’t exist because if he does he wouldn’t be like the one you believe. Well apparently this argument includes a personal perception of God.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benadam
this is a theological discussion. At least on this side it is.

On my side it is a philosophical discussion. That is why I posted it in the Philosophy section and not in the Apologetic one. My point is that to call someone “good”, “loving” and “caring” is preposterous if that being commits or allows the events we can observe.

Is a father good, loving and caring if he allows his child to brush his (the child’s) teeth and kill off several hundreds (at least) mouth area tissue cells?

The “events” that you observe, which you call “unnecessary” suffering (and pain), are mis-observed as such on your part.

You think you can grasp what only an omnipotent (omniscient) being can grasp, and make judgements based on your “miniscient” (is that a word?) observations and claim they are VALID?

Wow! What hubris and ego.

Your wish to assign blame for percieved injustice and lack of mercy and love is admirable, but your target for said blame is utterly wrong.

 

[OTavern]

Are you serious? Many humans, the mentally retarded and the very young children are incapable of understanding what happens to them when they are exposed to pain. They are unable to conceptualize. By the line of your reasoning it is perfectly all right to expose them to pain, since they cannot comprehend what happens to them.

There is a difference between awareness of and “conceptualize.” Being aware of something like pain does not mean it must be understood, simply consciously felt. The point is that as human beings, mentally handicapped individuals may not understand what is happening, but they can definitely feel it, i.e., are fully aware of pain. That makes it not all right to expose them to pain.

Comprehension is not the same as awareness. By this model, an animal like a dolphin or gorilla may be able to process complex patterns of information, for example, identify patterns of language and utilize it to communicate but have absolutely no awareness of doing so. That makes all the the difference. Even honeybees use complex systems of information to communicate, arguably the most complex in the animal world, but no one would argue bees are conscious entities.

On the other hand, human beings, even children and handicapped individuals may be consciously aware of existing but not understand or be able to process the kind of information a dolphin is able to, but that is irrelevant. The mere fact of consciousness makes it wrong to inflict pain on them.

On the third hand, even if animals do not have consciousness or awareness of being, that fact does not necessarily make it okay to torture them either. There may be other reasons for refraining from doing so.

 

[Henning]

What about Jesus’ work on the cross. He endured the cross, but did he consent to the PS&T?

 

[OTavern]

Whether the Christian God exists or not is an open question. But if there is one, his moral obligations are the same as ours - if there is an objectively existing morality.

I suspect there is a flaw in this conclusion. Moral obligations may depend upon capacity and therefore apply differently to different beings. A child is not held to the same standard as an adult simply because children do not have the ability to be responsible in the same way as adults are.

The same may be true going the other way. If God has infinite capacity, He therefore may have a completely different set of obligations from human beings. He may have the capacity to over-ride moral obligations because He has the capacity to rework consequences in ways that we do not. So it may be a huge error to believe our moral obligations are to be applied by us to God without understanding how His capabilities may affect His responsibilities.

A being that can make “sons of Abraham” out of rocks, may not be held to the same standards as humans who can do nothing to repair the consequences of their actions.

You may not totally comprehend the long term results of an action of yours, and therefore believe it to be acceptable, but in the eyes of a being who can see forward through time infinitely, your action may be totally repugnant. Obviously, you cannot be held to be morally responsible for such an act because of your limitations, but a prescient being would have quite a different view of right and wrong than you do. Hence, judging such a being, given your limitations, may be a grave error. You can have no full awareness of the particulars that would allow you to make judgements about such a being.

This would be akin to a child making observations about “justice” based upon current wants rather than longer term benefits. A child’s moral judgement would therefore be skewed by his/her perspective. Likewise, you having a limited temporal perspective may have a skewed view of ethics because they are based upon a narrow set of possible consequences. God, having a wider view may proscribe or carry out certain actions that you have no way of comprehending. Your judgement would be like that of a child who can only see and understand an ego-centred view of justice.

Therefore, ateista, stop trespassing into moral territory you have no business making comments about, i.e., judging God’s actions as if you have the capacity to decide how infinite knowledge and creative power impact moral responsibility. You simply are not able to make such judgements.

 

[OTavern]

Have you ever stubbed your toe and it hurt?

Yes…animals are capable of suffering.

You are an animal by the way.

What proof do you require?

Well, for starters a better proof than the one you give.

Here is your argument, in a nutshell:

1. You are an animal
2. You feel pain and are capable of suffering.
   Therefore, all animals feel pain and are capable of suffering.

Same logic:

1. You are an animal.
2. You have blonde hair and blue eyes.
   Therefore all animals have blonde hair and blue eyes.

Again:

1. You are an animal.
2. You drive a car and wear running shoes.
   Therefore all animals drive cars and wear running shoes.

Apparently logic is not your strong suit.

 

[ateista]

Well, for starters a better proof than the one you give.

Here is your argument, in a nutshell:

1. You are an animal
2. You feel pain and are capable of suffering.
   Therefore, all animals feel pain and are capable of suffering.

This is far too symplistic. The full syllogism is this:

1. All animals have a nervous system.
2. An excited nerve ending is perceived as pleasure or pain (depending on the type of nerve ending).
3. The excitement of nerve endings can be measured.
4. Humans are animals, in the sense that they have a nervous system.
5. You are a human.
6. When you stub your toe, your nerve endings are excited in a fashion that you perceive as pain.
7. The excited nerve endings can be measured on you and on the animals and the electronic impulses are the same.
8. Therefore all animals feel pain.

It is not a good techique to use a truncated syllogism.

 

[ateista]

There is a difference between awareness of and “conceptualize.” Being aware of something like pain does not mean it must be understood, simply consciously felt. The point is that as human beings, mentally handicapped individuals may not understand what is happening, but they can definitely feel it, i.e., are fully aware of pain. That makes it not all right to expose them to pain.

Comprehension is not the same as awareness. By this model, an animal like a dolphin or gorilla may be able to process complex patterns of information, for example, identify patterns of language and utilize it to communicate but have absolutely no awareness of doing so. That makes all the the difference. Even honeybees use complex systems of information to communicate, arguably the most complex in the animal world, but no one would argue bees are conscious entities.

You don’t differentiate between awareness and self-awareness. Animals are most definitely aware of their surrondings (as their behavior attests) and the condition of their bodies. According to experiments the higher apes and some other animals even exhibit a rudimentary self-awareness. (Apes actually were taught sign language and they asked for food when they were hungry.)

They are most certainly aware of the condition of their bodies. When rats were allowed to press down of two levers, one of which stimulated the pleasure center of their brain and the other one stimulated the pain center, they only induced pain once, while kept on pressing the pleasure inducing one until they literally collapsed from exhaustion.

Such behavior indicated that they were aware (anticipating) of the difference. True, not all animals are as advanced as rats and not all species were exposed to such experiments. The result was always the same: animals learned very fast to induce pleasure to themselves, and avoid inducing pain.

That proves conclusively that they are aware of the pleasure and pain (without conceptualizing it).

 

[ateista]

I suspect there is a flaw in this conclusion. Moral obligations may depend upon capacity and therefore apply differently to different beings. A child is not held to the same standard as an adult simply because children do not have the ability to be responsible in the same way as adults are.

You are correct. The higher the capacity of of the being involved, the higher level of standard we hold it to. If there would be a sign of God’s desk, it would read: “The buck stops here!”. I said: “the same standards”, and I was incorrect. God is held to a much higher standard. Not “different” standard, the same type, but on a higher level.

The same may be true going the other way. If God has infinite capacity, He therefore may have a completely different set of obligations from human beings. He may have the capacity to over-ride moral obligations because He has the capacity to rework consequences in ways that we do not. So it may be a huge error to believe our moral obligations are to be applied by us to God without understanding how His capabilities may affect His responsibilities.

I disagree with this. In my example I used a very simple scenario. Animals are exposed to pain (leading to death) which they do not “deserve”. They do not benefit from this exposure. To allow such incident we call “indifference” in humans. One may even call this behavior “cruel” and “evil”.

Therefore, ateista, stop trespassing into moral territory you have no business making comments about, i.e., judging God’s actions as if you have the capacity to decide how infinite knowledge and creative power impact moral responsibility. You simply are not able to make such judgements.

My friend, we almost never have “full knowledge”. Yet we must pass judgments. In this case we do have the pertient knowledge. The animals are exposed to pain from which they do not benefit. The idea that “someone else” may benefit from it cannot be argued realistically, and even if it were possible, it would still not justify the pain, because the animals did not (and could not) consent to their fate.

 

[ateista]

Whatever God wills is good. Within that theological Truth about the God of christians is both the ‘ordering because it is good’ and because it is ordered it is good.

That is a typical circular reasoning.

The answers I’ll give are conclusions accessible by human reason alone about the nature of God as One.

God is Mercy. God is Just. God is Good. God is love.

And this is sheer nonsense. Without actually defining “mercy”, “justice”, “good” and “love” independently from God your sentences like “God is mercy” carries no informational value. You simply define God as a synonym for “mercy”, “justice”, etc…

God doesn’t possess these and can’t be treated as one who possesses these things.

On the very contrary, these are attributes which allegedly pertain to God.

But enough of this. The thread is not about God’s alleged attributes or nature. It presented one specific dilemma, and so far there was no argument refuting the only logical solution.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benadam
God doesn’t possess these and can’t be treated as one who possesses these things.

On the very contrary, these are attributes which allegedly pertain to God.

But enough of this. The thread is not about God’s alleged attributes or nature. It presented one specific dilemma, and so far there was no argument refuting the only logical solution.

Your “solution” is based on faulty assumptions, which we have pointed out numerous times.

You call God both non-existent and if not non-existent necessarily evil in His injustice and lack of mercy. You do this with a faulty definition of God, of evil, of “necessity”, of mercy, of justice, of a proper subject OF mercy and justice, and of the accuracy of your observations of various phenomena.

You are perfectly correct in your conclusions based on your faulty assumptions, but no one with any awareness of your various faulty assumptions can possibly take you or your conclusions seriously.

If you would simply agree that we are correct in our conclusions based on our assumptions, just as you are correct in your conclusions based on your assumptions, we can come to some appreciation of you as something other than a crank.

So, what do you say? Are you willing to be reciprocal?