More on animal suffering

[warpspeedpetey]

There you go again! You’re assuming that what is being expressed is an emotion, and not simply programming. And then you’ll say, “Well I’m a human who has emotions, so it’s reasonable to assume that other humans who seem to express sentiments similar to mine have emotions.” But that’s an assumption! In fact, it’s exactly the same as the argument I outlined for you.

and there you go again, with the solipsism. its irrational to believe that other people are robots

I thought the Turing test was done with computers to test for artificial intelligence? I don’t really care though, because that’s beside the point.

Again, this is the same as the argument I outlined for you. You are a member of the class of “human.” All things human are contained within that class. However, “human” is not characterized by mental activity*, but by DNA, so mental activity need not be a common characteristic of all things human. Thus, “I have emotions, so other humans (especially those who seem to express them) must have emotions” is an assumption.

*By “mental activity,” I mean thinking and feeling.

more irrational solipsism, “other people might be robots”. really, just admitted you knew that was irrational.

I’m just taking your own argument to its most extreme implication. If you doubt the emotional capacities of animals nearly as developed as humans (from a relative perspective, of course), you might as well doubt those of humans.

i understand what you are trying to do, only taken to the absurdity youre going to is just entering the realm of irrational solipsism. if you care to believe other people are robots, then you have a faulty theory of mind and can be dismissed as a nut.

I notice a pattern: you only use the “tu quoqe” argument when you’re backed into a corner. Otherwise, you’d just continue bickering with me indefinitely.

or the pattern could be when you insist on making a tu qouqe? no? youre the one thats in a corner, after all youre spending all your time trying to make a fallacious tu qouqe, so you can feel better about keeping your irrational, yet cherished belief that your dogs love you. even worse you admit below that its fallacious. thats called being in a corner.

You’re right that I can’t say you’re incorrect because you’re being hypocritical. I can reveal your hypocrisy to the audience, however.

what hypocrisy? if you want to take a the solipistic position that other people might be robots, but that doesnt equal any hypocrisy on my part. it just makes you irrational.

What mortality truly entails is death; that is, the inevitable cessation of all experience. It’s not something to be sought. All talk of an afterlife is merely a distraction to keep us from panic or despair. For some, this afterlife speculation helps; for others, it causes them to end their lives when it isn’t necessary.

as youve never been dead, this is all bare assertion. you hope this is true, you dont know it is.

Now you’re just playing dumb.

im not playing dumb, im pointing out that despite your wiggling, physical pain isnt an emotion.

Christian ethics hasn’t really brought about a “sexual norm.”

no, but thats the component many people dislike. we can all agree on things like, dont lie, dont steal, dont kill, because most of us wouldnt do those things given the choice anyway. but we all want to have sexual freedom. regardless of the consequences.

As you say, most people don’t follow it. The few who do are suppressing urges that are there, and are praised as though they don’t have such urges.

you have a strange idea of what Christianity is, we dont pretend not to have those urges, we strive to be the masters of our flesh, not to deny they exist.

Do you think Jesus ever had sexual urges? Did he entertain them in his mind? If you think it’s possible for any man to go without sexual fantasies, then I will begin to question if you are a man.

no, i dont suppose its possible. who ever said that? you seem to think that simply having feelings or urges means you should satisfy them. funny, but i doubt you would say its ok to satisfy the urge to hurt someone you dislike, or the urge to steal something you want.

Why would you withdraw from sensitivity simply because doing so doesn’t make you popular?

still confused as too what that means. what does popularity or “withdrawing from sensitivity” have to do with anything?

I’m sure he wouldn’t. So? I could just as easily say, “Wait until that crazy axe-wielding murderer walks through your door and see how much he cares about your life.” Does this mean your life has no value? No. A power-hungry person of any sort, be it a boss or murderer, is not exactly the ideal role model.

no, but we arent talking about the sheer value of your life, we are talking about the utility of undue, sensitivity. which is about none.

I see. So the metaphysical defense against solipsism is “It’s not productive!” :crying: That’s not an argument.

and its not meant to be, in that there is no defense against solipsism in any school of thought outside of cogito ergo sum. mathematics, science, etc. you cant prove annything beyond cogito ergo sum.

It just goes to show that few metaphysical systems, if any, can be proven wrong.

then maybe they are correct? if you cant show how wsomething is wrong, then the likelyhood is that it is correct no?

These foundations are nothing more than assumptions. If the metaphysician assumes nothing, and starts with a blank slate, “cogito ergo sum” is as far as he’ll get. If I don’t make the same assumptions as you, you can’t argue against my system or call it “wrong.”

how little you know. we can go from cogito ergo sum all the way to G-d.

since you refuse to actually research any metaphsics. you wind up saying such silly things.

I don’t have to propose a new system whenever I thrash yours.

apparently you think “thrashing” means to make a few unfounded assertions about a subject you admit not having studied specifically the assertion “These foundations are nothing more than assumptions” yet you dont back tht up with specifics. i wonder why?

So I’ll just say, “no comment” and watch you squirm.

im not squirming, im laughing. you make some statements that display a complete lack of knowledge in a variety of subject areas, but you do it with such confidence! its laughable.

 

[Oreoracle]

and there you go again, with the solipsism. its irrational to believe that other people are robots

How is it irrational? You can’t prove that others aren’t robots, and you’ve admitted this, so certainty is out the door. That means that you’re just playing around with probabilities. What if someone didn’t think it probable that other humans have minds (as you do with other species)? And a position isn’t necessarily wrong because it’s irrational. It’s irrational to believe that one will win the lottery, but it might happen.

more irrational solipsism, “other people might be robots”. really, just admitted you knew that was irrational.

My exact words were “though arguably irrational,” meaning that I think it’s irrational given the assumptions I make about reality. And to repeat, irrationality has nothing to do with the truth value of a conclusion. If you asked a child who is just learning math what 54 plus 128 is, it might be irrational for them to answer “182” even though this is correct. Because they know so little about math, their answer was a guess, it just happened to be right. But just because guessing is irrational doesn’t mean that we can dismiss the child’s answer as incorrect when it is, in fact, correct.

i understand what you are trying to do, only taken to the absurdity youre going to is just entering the realm of irrational solipsism. if you care to believe other people are robots, then you have a faulty theory of mind and can be dismissed as a nut.

I think the same of people who doubt the obvious consciousness of some non-human animals. These are often the same people who make a living out of torturing and finally disposing of them. Go figure. If an alien race descended to Earth, questioned our consciousness, and eventually fell to torturing us and selling us as pets, I wonder if your pleas for mercy would be dismissed as “programming” as you do with the barks of dogs. I detect the makings of a Sci-Fi hit!

as youve never been dead, this is all bare assertion. you hope this is true, you dont know it is.

Well let’s see here. Every night, my brain slows, relaxes my body, and then maintains various checks and balances to get me ready for the next day. I’m completely oblivious to the world around me during this process. One could say that I’m unconscious and that I–that is, my awareness–cease to exist for a while. During particularly painful surgeries, doctors make sure that patients are unconscious and that they don’t feel pain. No patient who ever went through this process remembered what it was like being “put under” because they were unconscious, and therefore not aware. Call me crazy, but I see a pattern here. Without certain brain activity, there is no consciousness, and thus no life, as you’ve come to understand it. Now, will there be a god to resurrect you in some eternal paradise? I doubt it. It all sounds like wishful thinking.

And for the record, I would rather live forever in whatever hell you can imagine than cease to exist. I rather like my identity, and wish to keep it.

im not playing dumb, im pointing out that despite your wiggling, physical pain isnt an emotion.

My point is that it causes emotional pain. Who would dispute that intense physical pain causes emotional pain?

no, but thats the component many people dislike. we can all agree on things like, dont lie, dont steal, dont kill, because most of us wouldnt do those things given the choice anyway. but we all want to have sexual freedom. regardless of the consequences.

Most of the “consequences” Christians speak of are not tangible on Earth. It’s hard to convince people who see the actual, earthly, mortal utility value of a course of action that some fantastical tragedy will befall them after death if they go along with it. These threats are everywhere, and are made by all sorts of religions, each condemning different things (though there are similarities). The threats get old after a while.

no, but we arent talking about the sheer value of your life, we are talking about the utility of undue, sensitivity. which is about none.

Is all sensitivity undue? Oh wait, I know this one! “Not when it’s directed toward God!”

then maybe they are correct? if you cant show how wsomething is wrong, then the likelyhood is that it is correct no?

That’s not what I mean. There are multiple metaphysical systems that can’t be disproven. When combined, they tend to contradict one another. Solipsism, for example, cannot coexist with any other system. We can’t say all systems that can’t be proven wrong are correct, because none of them can be proven wrong (using metaphysics alone). And for the record, you can’t prove that “fairies exist” is wrong, either. Does that make it any more likely to be true?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How is it irrational? You can’t prove that others aren’t robots, and you’ve admitted this, so certainty is out the door.

its irrational because it is that solipsism you heard about, it basically says that everything is an illusion, what is real is only in ones head. yet if we cant trust what our senses say at some basic level it renders all other discussion moot.

That means that you’re just playing around with probabilities.

no it doesnt, because we arent dealing with mathematics.

What if someone didn’t think it probable that other humans have minds (as you do with other species)?

its not mathematics, its a lack of evidence. i dont think its “improbable”, i think there is no valid evidence for it.

And a position isn’t necessarily wrong because it’s irrational. It’s irrational to believe that one will win the lottery, but it might happen.

no, but if you wish to be purposely irrational, i think that you can be easily dismissed as a serious thinker. p.s. the fact that people do win makes it rational to believe that you **might **as well.

My exact words were “though arguably irrational,” meaning that I think it’s irrational given the assumptions I make about reality. And to repeat, irrationality has nothing to do with the truth value of a conclusion. If you asked a child who is just learning math what 54 plus 128 is, it might be irrational for them to answer “182” even though this is correct. Because they know so little about math, their answer was a guess, it just happened to be right. But just because guessing is irrational.

you just made the same argument in fewer words above.

I think the same of people who doubt the obvious consciousness of some non-human animals.

what obvious conciousness? i assume you mean emotions, you still dont have any valid evidence. what you perceive as emotions is projective parodelia and anthropomorphism. as you are not an animal.

These are often the same people who make a living out of torturing and finally disposing of them. Go figure.

how do you know that? another bare assertion froma bleeding heart?

p.s. i dont make my living in agriculture.

If an alien race descended to Earth, questioned our consciousness, and eventually fell to torturing us and selling us as pets, I wonder if your pleas for mercy would be dismissed as “programming” as you do with the barks of dogs. I detect the makings of a Sci-Fi hit!

they may have a hard time explaining a billion things we do unrelated to survival behavior. but animals dont do anything unrelated to survival behavior.

Well let’s see here. Every night, my brain slows, relaxes my body, and then maintains various checks and balances to get me ready for the next day. I’m completely oblivious to the world around me during this process. One could say that I’m unconscious and that I–that is, my awareness–cease to exist for a while. During particularly painful surgeries, doctors make sure that patients are unconscious and that they don’t feel pain. No patient who ever went through this process remembered what it was like being “put under” because they were unconscious, and therefore not aware. Call me crazy, but I see a pattern here. Without certain brain activity, there is no consciousness, and thus no life, as you’ve come to understand it.

except you wake up, and expect to wake up, you dream both asleep and under anesethsia. id call that being alive. what is there other than not having a full sensory load that differs those states from death?

Now, will there be a god to resurrect you in some eternal paradise? I doubt it. It all sounds like wishful thinking.

except for that little mathematical proof, huh

And for the record, I would rather live forever in whatever hell you can imagine than cease to exist. I rather like my identity, and wish to keep it.

people beg for the release of death under torture, old age, terminal illness, mental illness and sheer boredom. there are hells that you cant yet imagine.

My point is that it causes emotional pain. Who would dispute that intense physical pain causes emotional pain?

me for one, just about everyone i know for another. what makes you think that emotional pain stems from physical pain? what, ow, ow it hurts, now im super sad? i dont see how you can make that connection.

Most of the “consequences” Christians speak of are not tangible on Earth.

um…what? havent you noticed that breaking most of the commandments can cost you your freedom, your health, or your life?

It’s hard to convince people who see the actual, earthly, mortal utility value of a course of action that some fantastical tragedy will befall them after death if they go along with it. These threats are everywhere, and are made by all sorts of religions, each condemning different things (though there are similarities). The threats get old after a while.

what threats? that separation from G-d called hell? thats the ultimate price. there are plenty of earthly consequences for ones actions right here.

Is all sensitivity undue? Oh wait, I know this one! “Not when it’s directed toward God!”

most is, save it for your family, the rest of us dont want to see it. as to G-d, when you say things like that you just make it clear that atheism is a position you desire to hold not one yoou hold from trational examination. in other words. you want to be an atheist, just as you wan tto believe that your dogs love you. the truth doesnt matter to you, just how you feel. that is exactly the weakness of “feelings” and being “sensitive” it weakens one.

That’s not what I mean. There are multiple metaphysical systems that can’t be disproven. When combined, they tend to contradict one another.

which systems are you talking about?

Solipsism, for example, cannot coexist with any other system.

solipsism isnt a metaphysical school as i understand it, its merely one idea among many, and not a well respected one at that. you know, in a philosophy 101 class they explained what solipsism was to us and everyone used the word like you are for a few weeks, did you just read some text or something?

We can’t say all systems that can’t be proven wrong are correct, because none of them can be proven wrong (using metaphysics alone).

what systems are you refering to?

And for the record, you can’t prove that “fairies exist” is wrong, either. Does that make it any more likely to be true?

so whats your point here? we all know that abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

 

[Oreoracle]

its irrational because it is that solipsism you heard about, it basically says that everything is an illusion, what is real is only in ones head. yet if we cant trust what our senses say at some basic level it renders all other discussion moot.

And if we trust science, it will render certain speculation moot. You can’t discredit a system based solely on the fact that it discourages further speculation, activity, etc. Would you doubt the scientific explanation for the formation of rainbows, merely because it discourages speculating that a rainbow has anything to do with a leprechaun’s pot of gold? Lack of entertainment value is not a viable reason for dismissing a system of thought, even if the system is comprised of only one idea.

And stop acting like I don’t know what solipsism is. You aren’t superior to me just because you took a philosophy course. In fact, I’ve heard philosophy being considered the least useful major multiple times. The course doesn’t put you very far ahead of others who haven’t taken it, and students don’t seem to be any more capable of independent thought after taking it. Usually, they end up quoting the words of classical or medieval philosophers instead of posing original arguments, just like you. More often than not, this excessive quoting is just regurgitation and doesn’t exemplify genuine understanding of what’s been quoted.

its not mathematics, its a lack of evidence. i dont think its “improbable”, i think there is no valid evidence for it.

So there’s no indisputable evidence for the existence of other minds and no indisputable evidence against their existence. How, then, do we decide?

you just made the same argument in fewer words above.

Sometimes an argument needs to be presented in different ways to be understood. It helps to be versatile in debate.

as you are not an animal.

I’m curious: you’ve taken a philosophy course (or courses), but have you taken a biology course?

they may have a hard time explaining a billion things we do unrelated to survival behavior. but animals dont do anything unrelated to survival behavior.

That explains the homosexual sex, recreational wrestling (such as the “fighting” we see with primates, canines, etc.), the people who have been saved by dogs from fires, the people who have been alerted by dogs of fires, seeing-eye dogs, the occasional child who has escaped from society and been befriended by packs of dogs, etc. Yeah, they’re just robots, alright.

except you wake up, and expect to wake up, you dream both asleep and under anesethsia.

Firstly, there are periods before and after the dream stages of sleep where nothing is sensed. (I believe the REM step falls under this category.) Secondly, I expect to wake up before I sleep, but not while I sleep. I could pass away in my sleep tonight without having time to approve or disapprove of the turn of events. But I have to ask: how does my prediction that I’ll wake up suggest that I’ll live forever? You’re going to have to spell this out for me.

except for that little mathematical proof, huh

You mean your probabilistic argument? Even if those prophecies were credible (which I doubt), it wouldn’t matter if the odds of them being fulfilled were nine hundred and ninety-nine trillion to one (and the methods used to calculate these odds are dubious). It’s still a probability, not a certainty.

people beg for the release of death under torture, old age, terminal illness, mental illness and sheer boredom. there are hells that you cant yet imagine.

And yet, just as I haven’t experienced these “hells,” the people you mention haven’t experienced death, and so their opinions are uninformed. I’m essentially stuck with guessing which of two unknowns I would prefer to be subjected to: the unimaginable pain of hell, or the eternity of oblivion. Currently, I’d pick the former.

me for one, just about everyone i know for another. what makes you think that emotional pain stems from physical pain? what, ow, ow it hurts, now im super sad? i dont see how you can make that connection.

Have you ever been around a woman in labor, Pete? It’s not just hormones that cause that stress. But knowing you, I imagine you’ll ask, “How do you know those women are stressed because of the pain? Have you ever been a woman?” There’s just no reasoning with you.

I mean, you’ve seriously never seen someone who is irritable because of a migraine? I get that way all the time. It’s hard for me to believe you aren’t playing dumb here.

um…what? havent you noticed that breaking most of the commandments can cost you your freedom, your health, or your life?

If you’re talking about murder, stealing, or lying, I can see your point. But I don’t see how pre-marital sex causes more problems than marital sex. That’s just less pain to go through when the two inevitably break up. Greater commitment=more pain. Commitment=/=goodness (not necessarily, anyway). The sanctity of marriage is little more than tradition worship. An idea isn’t any better or worse just because it’s “traditional.”

what threats? that separation from G-d called hell?

Do you believe that I’m already separated from God due to mortal sin? If so, then I won’t be any worse off in hell than I am now. Either way, I’m separate from God.

which systems are you talking about?

Any system you please; it doesn’t need to be specific. It could be a system that posits the course of events as being circular, or multiple levels of reality, or multiple gods, or a rejection of the law of identity, or the belief that one is only a brain in a vat, or, in the vein of Descartes, that an evil demon is deceiving you by making falsities appear true. Whatever suits you.

solipsism isnt a metaphysical school as i understand it, its merely one idea among many, and not a well respected one at that.

I never said that it was a school of thought. The popularity of an idea does not affect its truth value.

you know, in a philosophy 101 class they explained what solipsism was to us and everyone used the word like you are for a few weeks, did you just read some text or something?

How else does a sophomore in high school learn about philosophy? And how am I using “solipsism” incorrectly? Do you have an actual objection, or are you just using your experience as a pedestal to take pot-shots at me?

so whats your point here? we all know that abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

You were the one who said that an idea is likely to be true because it can’t be disproven. There are plenty of unfalsifiable statements out there.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

That is the logical outcome of belief in evolution by Design…

Ok then one question, when and how does god control evolution?

 

[tonyrey]

Ok then one question, when and how does god control evolution?

God created the physical universe in order to sustain the existence of living organisms and rational beings such as ourselves. He ensures that life emerges and progresses by means of the laws of nature and, where necessary by direct intervention, so that individuals develop greater complexity, consciousness, intelligence, sensitivity, autonomy and control of the environment. The astonishing achievements of evolution with their exquisite power and beauty - which scientists fail to emulate, still less surpass - demonstrate that it is not an unguided process stumbling blindly from one improvement to another with no ultimate purpose but the intentional creation on this planet - and probably elsewhere in the universe - of a hierarchy of uniquely valuable individuals, culminating in persons who share in the power and freedom of God…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And if we trust science, it will render certain speculation moot. You can’t discredit a system based solely on the fact that it discourages further speculation, activity, etc. Would you doubt the scientific explanation for the formation of rainbows, merely because it discourages speculating that a rainbow has anything to do with a leprechaun’s pot of gold? Lack of entertainment value is not a viable reason for dismissing a system of thought, even if the system is comprised of only one idea.

well, you can be a solipsist if you like. there will be nothing to discuss because there will be nothing outside youre own head. it doesnt make you wrong, maybe you are the only thing that exists. but it does mean that you dont have anything to talk about. so right or not, its a complete dead end.

So there’s no indisputable evidence for the existence of other minds and no indisputable evidence against their existence. How, then, do we decide?

if you take the solipsist position, that only what is in your head is real, you cant.

Sometimes an argument needs to be presented in different ways to be understood. It helps to be versatile in debate.

i understood you the first time.

I’m curious: you’ve taken a philosophy course (or courses), but have you taken a biology course?

yes, my mistake, you are taxonomically an animal. you are not mentally an animal. you can exceed your programming.

That explains the homosexual sex,

thats not about sex, thats about dominance. animals dont have sex for fun as we do. not even a bonobo, who does it for social bonding. we, on the other hand often never see our one night stands again.

recreational wrestling (such as the “fighting” we see with primates, canines, etc)

how do you know its “recreational”, it looks like pack bonding behavior to me, or practice for future rutting fights.

the people who have been saved by dogs from fires, the people who have been alerted by dogs of fires,

pack behavior, essentially shouting “danger!, danger!” almost all social animals do that.

seeing-eye dogs,

simple training

the occasional child who has escaped from society and been befriended by packs of dogs, etc.

more pack behavior if true.

Yeah, they’re just robots, alright.

you havent yet given me an example that would show that they arent.

Firstly, there are periods before and after the dream stages of sleep where nothing is sensed. (I believe the REM step falls under this category.) Secondly, I expect to wake up before I sleep, but not while I sleep. I could pass away in my sleep tonight without having time to approve or disapprove of the turn of events. But I have to ask: how does my prediction that I’ll wake up suggest that I’ll live forever? You’re going to have to spell this out for me.

i dont know about any prediction youll live forever, only that the act of sleeping or being unconcious is not the same as being dead, you still have mental activity going on in those states.

You mean your probabilistic argument?

yes, the one proving that Christ was the Messiah, more absolutely than maybe any other fact. yes that one.

Even if those prophecies were credible (which I doubt),

on what basis do you doubt them?

it wouldn’t matter if the odds of them being fulfilled were nine hundred and ninety-nine trillion to one (and the methods used to calculate these odds are dubious). It’s still a probability, not a certainty.

the odds are much, much higher than that. this is 999 trillion to one 999,000,000,000,000. only eight prophecies fulfilled, from hundreds is 100,000,000,000,000,000 or 100 quadrillion. with 48 of the prophecies fulfilled it becomes 10^157 or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

i dont even know the names for mubers higher than google, and there are hundreds of prophecies. the odds only get higher. i dont know of anything more certain, do you? this is as certain as you can really get about anything. it would take a special kind of cognitive dissonance to deny the math.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And yet, just as I haven’t experienced these “hells,” the people you mention haven’t experienced death, and so their opinions are uninformed.

they simply think that death is preferable to the condition that they are in.

I’m essentially stuck with guessing which of two unknowns I would prefer to be subjected to: the unimaginable pain of hell, or the eternity of oblivion. Currently, I’d pick the former.

hell is separation from G-d. oblivion isnt a choice. if you are right you will never know it. if you are wrong you definitiely will. blaise pascal was right.

Have you ever been around a woman in labor, Pete? It’s not just hormones that cause that stress. But knowing you, I imagine you’ll ask, “How do you know those women are stressed because of the pain? Have you ever been a woman?” There’s just no reasoning with you.

yes, i have, they are in a lot of pain, but they are very happy. again, physical pain doesnt equal emotional pain.

I mean, you’ve seriously never seen someone who is irritable because of a migraine? I get that way all the time. It’s hard for me to believe you aren’t playing dumb here.

yes, im irritable when i have a headache, but that still isnt emotional pain. its just being irritable.

If you’re talking about murder, stealing, or lying, I can see your point. But I don’t see how pre-marital sex causes more problems than marital sex.

let me list the ways

1. kids out of wedlock
2. sexually transmitted diseases
3. a variety of social problems, decline in marital satisfaction, rise in divorce rates, etc.

im sure i can find more.

That’s just less pain to go through when the two inevitably break up.

break ups are not inevitable. they are endemic to our society. our culture, to what we allow as opposed to how things used to be. my grandfather was 20 years older than my grandmother, they fought like cats and dogs, but they stayed married for 60 years anyways. their relationship with G-d was more important than their personal differences. when grandad passed away a 6 years ago, he walked into grandmas room, said “i feel sick” and fell dead at her feet. he was 96. he died in the arms of the woman he had loved for 6 decades. they had problems, they split up, they seperated. stayed apart for quite a while when i was little. but they didnt divorce. that was unthinkable. at any price.

Greater commitment=more pain. Commitment=/=goodness (not necessarily, anyway).

greater commitment, real greater commitment is the gold standard. if you have and choose a prtner with a real idea of commitment, why does there need to be pain.

The sanctity of marriage is little more than tradition worship. An idea isn’t any better or worse just because it’s “traditional.”

no its not, but our culture now makes it ok, people, even though the statistics say different, think they will be better off divorced than married. in 1900 the divorce rate was tiny, by 1950 it had grown, and in the 70’s when they got no fault divorces it took off. people now think that divorce is their right regardless of the consequences for their children, their health, or their finances.

they can justify it any way they want, but it usually boils down to selfishness.

Do you believe that I’m already separated from God due to mortal sin? If so, then I won’t be any worse off in hell than I am now. Either way, I’m separate from God.

i think there may be a bit of difference. now, though you may not have a relationship with G-d, but youre not cut off. here you are comfortable , you have friends, and family. there you will have nothing, the pleasures of this world will be long gone, there will be no comfort, ever, and you will know that it is your own fault. as will every other miserable person around you.

Any system you please; it doesn’t need to be specific. It could be a system that posits the course of events as being circular, or multiple levels of reality, or multiple gods, or a rejection of the law of identity, or the belief that one is only a brain in a vat, or, in the vein of Descartes, that an evil demon is deceiving you by making falsities appear true. Whatever suits you.

none of these are metaphysical systems. your just taking random ideas from various parts of general philosophy.

I never said that it was a school of thought. The popularity of an idea does not affect its truth value.

How else does a sophomore in high school learn about philosophy? And how am I using “solipsism” incorrectly? Do you have an actual objection, or are you just using your experience as a pedestal to take pot-shots at me?

yes, the objection is that solipsism is irrational.

You were the one who said that an idea is likely to be true because it can’t be disproven. There are plenty of unfalsifiable statements out there.

its a good sign, if it cant be disproven, it may be true. that doesnt make it true. it is helpful though.

now, are you going to provide any evidence for your position left behind long ago? that animals have emotions?

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

God created the physical universe in order to sustain the existence of living organisms and rational beings such as ourselves. He ensures that life emerges and progresses by means of the laws of nature and, where necessary by direct intervention, so that individuals develop greater complexity, consciousness, intelligence, sensitivity, autonomy and control of the environment. The astonishing achievements of evolution with their exquisite power and beauty - which scientists fail to emulate, still less surpass - demonstrate that it is not an unguided process stumbling blindly from one improvement to another with no ultimate purpose but the intentional creation on this planet - and probably elsewhere in the universe - of a hierarchy of uniquely valuable individuals, culminating in persons who share in the power and freedom of God…

Well no body believes evolution is a “blind” process. However that aside you have not came close to answering my question. I would like to know, how and when god controls evolution, and how can we test for this. Remember if we can’t test this, then it is not science.

 

[tonyrey]

Well nobody believes evolution is a “blind” process.

Evolution by chance is “blind” compared to a process which is intended, guided and controlled by a being with insight…

… I would like to know, how and when god controls evolution, and how can we test for this.

So would we all! But our knowledge and intelligence are limited. No human being can know precisely how God works but we do know the salient stages of evolution which require divine intervention:

1. The creation of the universe with its physical laws and constants
2. The origin of life
3. The preservation of life when catastrophes occur
4. The origin and development of persons

… if we can’t test this, then it is not science.

There are many theories that cannot be tested even in science, e.g. evolution by chance.
There are also many non-scientific facts that can be tested non-scientifically. Science is restricted to the physical aspect of reality and tells us nothing about the most important things in life…

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Evolution by chance is “blind” compared to a process which is intended, guided and controlled by a being with insight…
So would we all! But our knowledge and intelligence are limited. No human being can know precisely how God works but we do know the salient stages of evolution which require divine intervention:

1. The creation of the universe with its physical laws and constants
2. The origin of life
3. The preservation of life when catastrophes occur
4. The origin and development of persons
   There are many theories that cannot be tested even in science, e.g. evolution by chance.
   There are also many non-scientific facts that can be tested non-scientifically. Science is restricted to the physical aspect of reality and tells us nothing about the most important things in life…

Great so you admit this is not science, hence why it is not, and should not be taught in science class.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Great so you admit this is not science, hence why it is not, and should not be taught in science class.

the problem is that science class should be balanced with philosophy, otherwise you wind up with scientism, most people dont even know that science is a branch of metaphysics. hence, a generation of people lacking critical thinking skills.

 

[tonyrey]

Great so you admit this is not science, hence why it is not, and should not be taught in science class.

To teach only the NeoDarwinist version of evolution, with which many scientists disagree, is to mislead children into thinking it is the sole explanation of our existence. To do so is not only unscientific but is also **unjustifiable deception **and unscrupulous proselytizing on behalf of atheism. Such a dogmatic, one-sided approach to the subject infringes sound educational principles - which insist on a balanced, impartial presentation of any controversial issue and encourage children to think for themselves rather than blindly accept the views of the teacher…

 

[catholic1seeks]

I asked this question to Msgr. Charles Pope (I don’t know much about him – just that newadvent.org has updated links to various articles, videos, and blog posts of his).

I was fortunate to get a response! I have harder time on “Ask an Apologist”

He didn’t go very in-dept, but he said that he didn’t have much time.

So maybe this could help:

My question

Hi. Why do animals suffer? It is apparent that nature has always been “red in tooth and claw” in nature even before the Fall of man.

Reply
Msgr. Charles Pope says:
October 13, 2009 at 10:23 am

"…However as you note we are left with a bit of a problem in that our scientific evidence more than suggests that long before Man and thus long before original sin there were great upheavals in creation and that animals such as dinosaurs killed eachother for food and that there was death in the world, even mass extictions. THus we are cautioned in using the Bibles poetic genre as a strict scientific account. Many more fundamentalist Christians try to turn the Scripture’s allegorical and poetic genre into science. It is not. The scriptures do clearly link the suffering and upheaval of creation to sin, but it is not necessary a one for one connection to Original sin. For example, there could be a connection to the fall of the angels as well, long before man. Another theory is that the garden in which Adam and Eve were placed was a garden set apart and that in that garden there would have been no death or suffering. Hence the Greek root of the word paradise can come from para (meaning beside, and daezo meaning “wall.’ Another root analysis of the word is from the Greek root pairi meaning park and daezo meaning wall. Either way “paradise” means a place set apart (by a wall) from the rest. The theory then is that although the circle of life and other unheaval might continue outside paradise but within would be exempt from all that. So the Scriptures may not be incorrect in their poetry that something happened which thrust us from a paradise into the harsher world in which we now live and that somehow our sin intensified the chaos of creation, but was not its only cause.

Finally to your fundamental question. Why do animals suffer. Let us presume that, as science seems to show, suffering, death and chaos have been here from the start. Why does it have to be this way. Fundamentally I don’t know, it is impossible to speculate that things could have been some other way or should be. But consider that there is a circle of life that seems apt for the world. God fashions and refashions using this cycle. Last years leaves serve as nutrients in the soil for this years growth. Old trees die to give way for new. Forest fires clear undergrowth. Hurricanes help distribute heat from the equator toward the poles. Animals feed upon each other but also keep their populations in proper balance. There is a genius in the system that must be appreciated even if it shocks some of our sensibilities and feelings.

Do animals suffer? It seems clear that they do suffer physical pain and expereince fear. But I think a lot of the suffering we impute to them may be a bit of a projection. It does not seem that most animlas have a sophisticated “inner life” that would substanitally add to suffering. For example, I may know that I exist and am about to die. That surely intensifies my suffering. An animal does not necessarily go through all this. It may have no concept of “i” or of death. They may simply instictually respond to danger and have little or no feelings at all. It is hard to say. As for physical pain, I can say from expereince from broken bones and other serious injury that the body has a defense mechanism. I have broken a bone and felt little pain until 20 to 30 minutes later. Hence in the throws of death an animal may not suffer as much pain as we might think."

 

[Oreoracle]

well, you can be a solipsist if you like. there will be nothing to discuss because there will be nothing outside youre own head. it doesnt make you wrong, maybe you are the only thing that exists. but it does mean that you dont have anything to talk about. so right or not, its a complete dead end.

Okay, so we’ve established that metaphysics can’t disprove even the most outrageous positions, such as solipsism. In fact, it allows for the possibility. This is why I’d prefer talking to a naturalist over a metaphysician.

thats not about sex, thats about dominance. animals dont have sex for fun as we do. not even a bonobo, who does it for social bonding. we, on the other hand often never see our one night stands again.

I see. So animals can socially bond, but they don’t have emotions. They can desire dominance, but they don’t have emotions. You must have a very narrow definition of “emotion” (not that I’m surprised). An emotion, to me, is simply a mental impetus or a compulsive feeling. Maybe you only have an eye for more sophisticated emotions? That would be the typical human-centric behavior. It’s almost like you’re programmed.

how do you know its “recreational”, it looks like pack bonding behavior to me, or practice for future rutting fights.

And how do you know all wrestling is either pack bonding or practice for future fights? Have you ever been an animal?! You’re giving your assertions a different standard of evidence than mine.

the people who have been saved by dogs from fires, the people who have been alerted by dogs of fires,

on what basis do you doubt them?

Just by typing in Messianic Prophecies, I got a list of predictions such as “the Messiah will be mocked” and “people will gamble for his clothing” and “his bones will not be broken” and so on. My response is: Well duh! Anytime you have an outspoken zealot, you’re going to have folks that hate him (especially in the ancient times). It just so happened that Jesus was hated more than the rest. Go figure. After thousands of public killings of heretics, you get one who was treated worse and happened to be connected to people named “Judah,” “Abraham,” and such.

I could predict that, at some point in the future, a man named Johnson will be born, his mother will be Catherine, and that he will become paralyzed after crashing while driving under the influence, killing exactly two passengers in the other vehicle. He will then be hated by the general public.

Now if this were on the news, you might be convinced that my prediction was something special, but it was simply inevitable. It’s going to happen eventually.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Okay, so we’ve established that metaphysics can’t disprove even the most outrageous positions, such as solipsism. In fact, it allows for the possibility. This is why I’d prefer talking to a naturalist over a metaphysician.

as a naturalist cannot disprove solipsism, and cannot prevent the possibility either, as there is no difference in the approach to solipsism, than why would that be a reason to prefer one over the other?

I see. So animals can socially bond, but they don’t have emotions.

pack bonding is an instinct. i dont see how that means they have emotions.

They can desire dominance, but they don’t have emotions.

another instinct, the dominant animal gets breeding rights, first choice at food, drink, etc. a pure survival mechanism.

You must have a very narrow definition of “emotion” (not that I’m surprised). An emotion, to me, is simply a mental impetus or a compulsive feeling.

by that definition a roomba has emotion. it has a software impetus.

Maybe you only have an eye for more sophisticated emotions? That would be the typical human-centric behavior. It’s almost like you’re programmed.

no, i just want evidence of them, something you have failed to provide, yet you believe in animal emotions, but not the undeniable mathematical evidence of Messianic Prophecy. maybe you really do have an agenda?

And how do you know all wrestling is either pack bonding or practice for future fights? Have you ever been an animal?! You’re giving your assertions a different standard of evidence than mine.

i know they need survival skills as programmed by evolution, to survive and pass their genes to the next generation, i know no such thing about a contention that these are emotions

the people who have been saved by dogs from fires, the people who have been alerted by dogs of fires,

pack behavior “danger!, danger!”

Just by typing in Messianic Prophecies, I got a list of predictions such as “the Messiah will be mocked” and “people will gamble for his clothing” and “his bones will not be broken” and so on. My response is: Well duh! Anytime you have an outspoken zealot, you’re going to have folks that hate him (especially in the ancient times). It just so happened that Jesus was hated more than the rest. Go figure. After thousands of public killings of heretics, you get one who was treated worse and happened to be connected to people named “Judah,” “Abraham,” and such.

and gambled for his clothing? and his bones werent broken? and the dozens of other prophecies that He fulfilled? its just like finding a person by their adress, it takes mmaybe 5 pieces of info to narrow it down to one person out of 7 billion on the planet. in this case we have a great many peices of information that narrow it down to Christ. mere chance can be ruled out mathematically as a reasonable idea.

I could predict that, at some point in the future, a man named Johnson will be born, his mother will be Catherine, and that he will become paralyzed after crashing while driving under the influence, killing exactly two passengers in the other vehicle. He will then be hated by the general public.

now add in dozens of other specifics, leave a note for someone else to do the same for in 500 years, and have him leave a note for another stranger to do so in another 500 years, and then all of you, not knowing each other, predict many more details to the car crash that wont occur for a very specific number of years. and then the car crash must happen

if you can arrange for that, gues who you would have to be? …G-d.

Now if this were on the news, you might be convinced that my prediction was something special, but it was simply inevitable. It’s going to happen eventually.

if you guess a a car crash like that, big deal, thats not anywhere near the same as the Messianic Prophecies. youu would have to predict dozens of details, and people you dont know seperated by centureis from now would also have to do the same.

 

[Oreoracle]

hell is separation from G-d. oblivion isnt a choice. if you are right you will never know it. if you are wrong you definitiely will. blaise pascal was right.

I thought belief in God couldn’t be motivated by fear? Pascal’s Wager is like saying, while holding a gun to someone’s head, “Believe that the moon is made of cheese or I’ll blow your head off!” To repeat for the umpteenth time: Rationality has nothing to do with truth value.

yes, i have, they are in a lot of pain, but they are very happy. again, physical pain doesnt equal emotional pain.

My mom doesn’t agree. She was quite miserable during the pregnancy due to the physical pain (she nearly miscarried because of scar tissue on her belly and high blood pressure). Since you haven’t been pregnant before (I hope ), I’m inclined to trust her word over yours. And as we speak, I’m a bit irritable due to a headache. How arrogant it is for you to say, “The irritability you’re experiencing isn’t emotional.” I think I know my own mind better than you.

yes, im irritable when i have a headache, but that still isnt emotional pain. its just being irritable.

How do you define “emotion?”

1. kids out of wedlock

How is this more problematic than kids in wedlock? Two people can’t cooperate without being married?

1. sexually transmitted diseases

Ah yes, I forgot that marriage prevents us from contracting STDs from one another. Because being moral, as we know, cleanses the body of illness and disease.

1. a variety of social problems, decline in marital satisfaction, rise in divorce rates, etc.

How do you measure “marital satisfaction?” And it’s hard for me to believe that there would be more divorce if there were fewer marriages. That’s like saying that the next generation will be larger than this one even if we have fewer children!

break ups are not inevitable. they are endemic to our society. our culture, to what we allow as opposed to how things used to be. my grandfather was 20 years older than my grandmother, they fought like cats and dogs, but they stayed married for 60 years anyways. their relationship with G-d was more important than their personal differences. when grandad passed away a 6 years ago, he walked into grandmas room, said “i feel sick” and fell dead at her feet. he was 96. he died in the arms of the woman he had loved for 6 decades. they had problems, they split up, they seperated. stayed apart for quite a while when i was little. but they didnt divorce. that was unthinkable. at any price.

If these people want to pretend to uphold the vows that they will love and cherish one another just by sticking around and not getting a divorce, then they can be my guest. Living in separate households hardly indicates love, or maybe we have different ideas of what it means to love.

greater commitment, real greater commitment is the gold standard. if you have and choose a prtner with a real idea of commitment, why does there need to be pain.

“Why is there pain?” is a meaningless question unless one believes there’s an underlying intent in the universe (“why” implies an intent). I can tell you how pain is caused, though.

now, are you going to provide any evidence for your position left behind long ago? that animals have emotions?

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I believe there’s enough evidence, and you don’t. It’s as simple as a difference in standards of evidence. I also believe that, by using your system, we don’t have evidence of any other consciousness but our own.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I thought belief in God couldn’t be motivated by fear? Pascal’s Wager is like saying, while holding a gun to someone’s head, “Believe that the moon is made of cheese or I’ll blow your head off!” To repeat for the umpteenth time: Rationality has nothing to do with truth value.

My mom doesn’t agree. She was quite miserable during the pregnancy due to the physical pain (she nearly miscarried because of scar tissue on her belly and high blood pressure). Since you haven’t been pregnant before (I hope ), I’m inclined to trust her word over yours. And as we speak, I’m a bit irritable due to a headache. How arrogant it is for you to say, “The irritability you’re experiencing isn’t emotional.” I think I know my own mind better than you.

How do you define “emotion?”

How is this more problematic than kids in wedlock? Two people can’t cooperate without being married?

Ah yes, I forgot that marriage prevents us from contracting STDs from one another. Because being moral, as we know, cleanses the body of illness and disease.

How do you measure “marital satisfaction?” And it’s hard for me to believe that there would be more divorce if there were fewer marriages. That’s like saying that the next generation will be larger than this one even if we have fewer children!

If these people want to pretend to uphold the vows that they will love and cherish one another just by sticking around and not getting a divorce, then they can be my guest. Living in separate households hardly indicates love, or maybe we have different ideas of what it means to love.

“Why is there pain?” is a meaningless question unless one believes there’s an underlying intent in the universe (“why” implies an intent). I can tell you how pain is caused, though.

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I believe there’s enough evidence, and you don’t. It’s as simple as a difference in standards of evidence. I also believe that, by using your system, we don’t have evidence of any other consciousness but our own.

this conversation isnt going anywhere on the evidence of animal suffering, and i am finding more fruitful conversations elsewhere right now.

thank you

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

the problem is that science class should be balanced with philosophy, otherwise you wind up with scientism, most people dont even know that science is a branch of metaphysics. hence, a generation of people lacking critical thinking skills.

Maybe, but science in science class and philosophy in philosophy class.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

To teach only the NeoDarwinist version of evolution, with which many scientists disagree, is to mislead children into thinking it is the sole explanation of our existence. To do so is not only unscientific but is also **unjustifiable deception **and unscrupulous proselytizing on behalf of atheism. Such a dogmatic, one-sided approach to the subject infringes sound educational principles - which insist on a balanced, impartial presentation of any controversial issue and encourage children to think for themselves rather than blindly accept the views of the teacher…

Well what else would you like to teach, you have openly admitted the god hypothesis is not science, if fact its not even a scientific hypothesis, as by definition a scientific hypothesis must be testable.

Also there are not “many” biologists that disagree with Darwin’s theory of evolution. As a percent we are talking less than 0.001% and that’s being generous.

There is a clear process that outlines what gets taught in science class. Look into it and you will see why evolution is taught.