The Problem of Pain

[PJM]

=Spock;8093785]
I sure would like to see that chain of fully secular and totally rational arguments. First for the existence of God, and second for the benevolence of God, which allows the unnecessary suffering of animals. Bring it on, my friend.

First the existence of God:

There is the unanswered question of “the First Cause”
God in no way was Obligated or even required to Create the Universe. So WHY DID HE?

Science today confirms that the Universe consist of MANY BILLIONS of stars, planets and galaxies: BUT ONLY ONE: PLANET EARTH CAN BE PROVEN TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT LIFE FORMS AS WE KNOW THM. … WHY?

On Planet Earth there are many HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of “Living thigs” …BUT ONLY One; Humanity can Love. Which requires a mind, Intellect, FREEWILL and soul; ALL linked togeather forever… WHY?

Were I to ask you to qunatify for us your “FREEWILL,” what color, shape, its weight and its size; you would be unable to do so. **WHY? **

Each of these “things” can be proven: none quantified: WHY? Because like the force we CHOOSe to call “our God”; the force and Power that brought the Universe into existence [can you disprove this?]; these “THINGS” are SPIRITUAL Things.

Further both Good and Evil exist: WHY?

Each of these “WHY"S” is answered by “Our God”.

The Entire Universe was Created to showcase the Majesty and Awesomeness of God. Humanity is Created in oder to: 1. Acknowlwdge this Majesty 2. Bevause we alone of all Created Things can love; and because in-order to love one MUST use the “Spiritual Things”; the things that mimic some of God’s PWN attributes, we are to conclude that the capacity to love MEANS that we ARE in Fact created to Love.

To Love God, love ourselves and to love everyonr God places in our lifes Path.

As to Proving God’s benolevence. One can shaow it; in part explain it; but part of this benovelence; the FREEWILL also permits those who choose to do so, to deny it.

Here are some freebies from Our God. The universe itself in all of its complexity and diciplines. The air we breath. The sun and the moon and how they interact [certainly not accidental] and relate to our existence.**Plants, fruit animals **and sea-foad for our nourishment.

None of this is explainable unless attributed to “Our God.” And humanities existence makes no-sense without the capacity to love.

These are so aparent and obvious that folks THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO recogonized these truths.

Gen.1: 26 to 27 "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Isaiah cf. 43:7-21 “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” Bring forth the people who are blind, yet have eyes,
who are deaf, yet have ears! Who among them can declare this, and show us the former things? and let them hear and say, It is true. “You are my witnesses,” says the LORD,
“and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me … [21] the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.”

**Isa.29: 16 **” You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay; that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?

Isa.45: 9 "Woe to him who strives with his Maker, an earthen vessel with the potter!
Does the clay say to him who fashions it, What are you making'? or Your work has no handles’?”

Isa.64: 8 “Yet, O LORD, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou art our potter; we are all the work of thy hand.”

This my friend is too profound, too sublime for many to understand and accept; and YET this injust the bbeginning og Gods benovelence and Love; NOT the end of it

**Luke.1: 26 to 35 **"In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, Full of GRACE, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. [31] And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. [means [SAVIOR] and of his kingdom there will be no end.” [your part of this kingdom too] And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” * And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit [WHO IS GOD] will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; [impregnant you] therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

***Our Spiritual THINGS permit us to acknowlede and Love God for who and what we ARE; BUT ALSO to freely choose NOT too. I’ve made MY choice; and I’ll pray that you make the RIGHT choice too.

God Bless you,
Pat****

 

[GEddie]

You say that the majority of the animals dies of smoke inhalation. Is that a “pleasant” way to go? What about the minority of the animals, who actually die of exposure to fire? Even if there is only one, that suffering is “not fun” for the animal

We are all impending victims of death; and death is not “fun” for anybody (animal or human body).

One day, you are gonna wake up and not breathe, and that will be hideous distress even if it occurs in your bed after 101 years of very fulfilling life. It doesn’t matter how biological life is ended, there is no “pleasant” way to “go.”

Yet I am sure you are OK with death in principle; most people are, because it “makes room for babies,” etc, etc, ad nauseum; and so, by extension, you should also be ok with physical suffering. Both death and physical suffering are corollarial to the physical law of entropy.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Spock]

And, I’m saying that we simply don’t know what “unnecessary, gratuitous” are in this. Moreover, we don’t have the slightest clue whether what we do see is incompatible with benevolence. That is only your/our anthropomorphistic assumption.

Of course you are aware that this is merely an argument from ignorance. I am willing to grant you that we do not have ALL the information. We never do. Not even in inter-human relationships, and much less so in human-God relationships. But that does not prevent (and should not prevent) us from forming value-judgments, based upon the available information. All the available information points to unnecessary suffering. No one can make a plausible argument that animal suffering due to natural causes somehow plays a part in some unspeficied “greater good”. If there is no visible and possible argument, then the only logical and rational conclusion is that there is none. Again, the good old duck principle in action. Let us remember it every time we make a post!

OK. Delete the word, “more.” (I didn’t think about it. Had I, I wouldn’t have put it there.)

The only truly humane method would be eliminating all the pain. I don’t think you can do that. So far you did not even attempt. And it was a smart decision.

That is the predicament. We see you as the irrational one.

I am sure you do. That is, of course, your prerogative. Now, would you mind telling me, just what is irrational about going with the available evidence? What is rational about going against all the available evidence?

Nor did I ever say that I did. When and where we can intervene, we are expected to. When and where we can’t (or don’t), then there may be a necessity. We can only conjecture.

1. We know about a mine collapsing, we try our best to rescue them, but we are unable to do it. Then the our lack of ability (which is contingent upon the available technology) is the one which will “create” a necessity? Having a better technology would enable us to rescue those poor miners. Is our current level of technology the arbiter of what is necessary and unnecessary suffering? That would be a lousy “conjecture”. And remember: “may be a necessity” carries no weight. You need to show what is the “greater good”, and how does our lack of ability affect it. To argue “may be a necessity” is just another instance of “argumentum ad ignoratiam”. (So many instances of this fallacy.)
2. We don’t even know about a hiker falling into a crevasse, where he will die of exposure, the lack of water. Since we are ignorant of this fact, a rescue operation cannot even be mounted. Does this ignorance somehow “trigger” a greater good, which will justify the death of this poor hiker? Come on… The only valid conjecture is that God does not care about the fate of those miners, about the fate of that hiker, about the fate of those who die in an Earthquake or a tsunami - and that conjecture is solidly based upon the lack of interference initiated by God. That is the actual, irrefutable evidence. Do you dispute it? If you do, on what grounds? That it contradicts the teaching of the church?

On the contrary: I see “evidence” that you refuse to see.

No, I do not “refuse” to see. That is not the way it should be presented. I genuinely do not see it. Please share the evidence. I am most willing to contemplate it. But, please, bear in mind: an “evidence” cannot be something that must be accepted a-priori. It cannot lead to a circular reasoning. I really like to see the presentation of all the available evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. I have nothing to lose if you can present a valid case and prove that I am wrong. Actually, I have a lot to gain by “losing”. Can you say the same thing? If you do, I will be most pleasantly surprised. No believer has ever dared to say: “if the evidence proves that there is no God, or that God is not benevolent - then so be it!”.

 

[Spock]

We are all impending victims of death; and death is not “fun” for anybody (animal or human body).

One day, you are gonna wake up and not breathe, and that will be hideous distress even if it occurs in your bed after 101 years of very fulfilling life. It doesn’t matter how biological life is ended, there is no “pleasant” way to “go.”

Yet I am sure you are OK with death in principle; most people are, because it “makes room for babies,” etc, etc, ad nauseum; and so, by extension, you should also be ok with physical suffering. Both death and physical suffering are corollarial to the physical law of entropy.

Only partially true. There is a huge difference between falling to sleep and never waking up (happened to my mother) and being tortured to death by applying electro-shocks to one’s private parts (unfortunately happens to many poeple). And having had 3 heart attacks (so far) I can attest that it is a very “nice” way to go, caeteris paribus. I can imagine an even better way to leave this world… to die in the saddle - so to speak - and no, I do not speak of riding a horse. (I leave the rest to your imagination.)

I agree that life and death are not contradictory, they are complimentary. but life and suffering are contradictory.

 

[GEddie]

Only partially true. There is a huge difference between falling to sleep and never waking up (happened to my mother) and being tortured to death by applying electro-shocks to one’s private parts (unfortunately happens to many poeple). And having had 3 heart attacks (so far) I can attest that it is a very “nice” way to go, caeteris paribus. I can imagine an even better way to leave this world… to die in the saddle - so to speak - and no, I do not speak of riding a horse. (I leave the rest to your imagination.)

I agree that life and death are not contradictory, they are complimentary. but life and suffering are contradictory.

I had heard that heart attack is extremely painful. That was not your experience?

And what was that Latin word you used? I don’t speak Latin, I just live next to Latin America

Anyhow, I maintain that suffering and death are part of the same hideous coin; death is just suffering completed, and both result from the law of entropy. Suffering is body disruption that doesn’t end your being. Death is body disruption that does end your being.

And, myself, human death bothers me a LOT more than some Bambi roasting in a forest fire, or some cat being hit by a truck. We will just have to disagree amicably.

But suffering and death go together; if you accept one, you have to perforce accept the other.

ICXC NIKA

 

[sw85]

Same thing, different words. I already posited a simple problem, and it looks like that no one wishes to tackle it: There is an incredible amout of pain and suffering in random wildfires. The animals involved will not benefit from those fires, they perish in great pain. They will not be “rewarded” in heaven, either. The fire may be beneficial for us, humans, if it clears off the underbrush, that is true. But that benefit cannot be used to justify the suffering of the animals, since the same benefit would be achieved even if the animals did not burn to death. The possible argument, that animals “do not matter” is unacceptable. A beneficial God does no allow gratitous suffering of animals either. Thre other possible argument, that wildfires are “natural occurrances” is without merit. God can do anything, except logical contradictions, and there is nothing logically contradictory in saving the animals from the pain.

Again, I’m not seeing why this is a problem.

Pain is, in principle, a good: it is the custodian of life. Without it, there’d be no incentive to avoid harm. There is no way that it can serve this function if it is willy-nilly abandoned. What, is God to reach down and instantly smite the poor deer, or deactivate the pain centers of their brain for them? That’s nonsense.

Simple. It is nonsensical. Movement, change or causation are only defined within the universe, along with space, time, the concept of prior to, or after this, etc… The universe is a collection of “things” not a “thing” in itself. The concepts mentioned above are undefined and undefinable for the universe. Aquinas committed the fallacy of making observations within the universe, and then attempting to apply the result of the observations to the universe.

“Movement” is a property of matter. There is no “movement” where there is no matter. Causation is an exchange of material particles. Without matter there is no causation (and no reference to some smoke-and-mirrors “efficient causation” will change this). Before and after are properties of STEM (space, time, energy, matter). What philosophers attempt to do is apply these categories as if they were independent of the material infrastructure. There is a good expression for this endeavor: “balloon peeling”. What do you get, when you peel the surface off a ballon? Nothing. And that is what philosophers do. The only problem is that they get paid for it. If they would use their energy on creating actual “things”, we all would be better off.

The very questions: “what was before the universe?”, or “what is outside the universe?”, or “what caused the universe?” and so on… are meaningless questions, because they attempt to apply concepts which are simply not applicable. Consider the direction of “north”. This concept can be applied to all points on the surface of Earth, but it cannopt be applied at the north pole. But this should belong to a different thread.

Wait… you realize the Unmoved Mover argument is an ontological one, not a temporal one, right?

 

[GEddie]

“Movement” is a property of matter. There is no “movement” where there is no matter.

Are you sure; light is not matter, yet it moves; it has its characteristic speed, “C.”

What do you get, when you peel the surface off a ballon? Nothing. And that is what philosophers do. The only problem is that they get paid for it. If they would use their energy on creating actual “things”, we all would be better off.

No argument there from me, hombre. I am a nonphilosopher, and proud of it.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Spock]

I had heard that heart attack is extremely painful. That was not your experience?

Nope. It was more uncomfortable than it was painful. (Of course I cannot speak for others.) I even joked with the paramedics, and asked them if I should just walk out to the ambulance. They did not agree, put me on a stretcher, and as soon as I was inside the the ambulance - I flatlined. They brought me back with the “thumb of life”.

And what was that Latin word you used? I don’t speak Latin, I just live next to Latin America

It means: “Everything else being equal”.

Anyhow, I maintain that suffering and death are part of the same hideous coin; death is just suffering completed, and both result from the law of entropy. Suffering is body disruption that doesn’t end your being. Death is body disruption that does end your being.

Allegedly God is in total control of the laws of nature. Entropy is not a logical necessity. The world could exist just fine without it.

And, myself, human death bothers me a LOT more than some Bambi roasting in a forest fire, or some cat being hit by a truck.

Oh, I agree with you totally. The reason I brought up the animals, is that no one can argue about some nebulous reward for them in the “hereafter”. With humans I have frequently seen the “argument” that it “really does not matter what happens in this short existence, when one compares it to the eternal bliss”. And I am sick and tired of that particular nonsense.

We will just have to disagree amicably.

That is always a good option. Actually, the best I can hope for.

But suffering and death go together; if you accept one, you have to perforce accept the other.

Death - the cessation of existence - does not need to be painful.

 

[Spock]

Pain is, in principle, a good: it is the custodian of life. Without it, there’d be no incentive to avoid harm. There is no way that it can serve this function if it is willy-nilly abandoned.

Harm is not a logical necessity. We could be “made of” inorganic materials, where we could just repair ourselves and pain would be out of the equation.

What, is God to reach down and instantly smite the poor deer, or deactivate the pain centers of their brain for them? That’s nonsense.

I happen to disagree. And the deer disagrees, too.

Wait… you realize the Unmoved Mover argument is an ontological one, not a temporal one, right?

Sure. If metaphysics is contradicted by actual physics it is not worth the price of the paper it is written upon. There is no ontological dependency without temporal one.

 

[Spock]

Are you sure; light is not matter, yet it moves; it has its characteristic speed, “C.”

Of course it is matter-energy (they cannot be separated). Light is composed of photons.

No argument there from me, hombre. I am a nonphilosopher, and proud of it.

Cheers, mate! Of course I despise lawyers and politicians even more.

 

[Luke_K]

Pain is, in principle, a good: it is the custodian of life.

Quite true. I had appendicitis, and were it not for the un-ignorable pain I would have died without knowing what happened, or I wouldn’t have thought it serious enough to go to the hospital and have it operated on.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Better minds than I have grappled with this problem without resolving it to everyone’s satisfaction, but I’ll throw out some explanations that haven’t been mentioned yet:

1. The best answer to the problem of pain for someone who is actually suffering isn’t to try to explicate why it happened, whether your viewpoint is Catholic or Atheist. It is to put an arm around them, tell them how sorry you are, and ask if you can do anything to help. Then bring them a hot meal or offer to help with their kids or whatever they need.
2. That being said, I find the desire for Atheists to be treated as God’s Pets, to be kept free from suffering or death for all time, as kind of revolting as well as scientifically and philosophically naive. Even from a strictly materialistic viewpoint, living things have to die to make room for other life. The planet is finite and has finite resources, and if none of the billions of people who have walked the earth ever died, and if they continued to have offspring, and if they had offspring, and so on, we would literally be crammed belly to back and unable to move and drowning in our own wastes. The very processes that sustain life cause death. The sodium silicate cycle in the earth’s interior that regulates the planet’s temperature and make life possible also causes the tectonic shifts that create earthquakes, such as the recent tragedy in Japan. Unless Spock is a strict vegan (and even if so), his life is sustained by the loss and suffering of other living creatures (the soldiers that are defending him, if no one else). There seems to be a cosmic balance sheet that says sacrifice is required for life, a concept with which Catholics are not unfamiliar.

It’s an interesting mental experiment to try to imagine the kind of world that an Atheist would require in order to feel comfortable giving God the great compliment of belief. It would be a world without Free Will. It would be a world where no one could ever be mean or snarky or make a cutting remark. Atheists would not even be able to express disagreement on a forum such as this, as it could cause suffering to believers. You couldn’t break off a relationship with your high school sweetheart, EVER, as it could cause them suffering. You couldn’t go ski-boarding or play softball or practice judo because an accident could cause you or your family pain. There wouldn’t be any suffering, but there also wouldn’t be any compassion (no need for it), there wouldn’t be courage, there wouldn’t be any virtue as all of the virtues spring from the need for strength in the face of misery and evil and suffering.

Such a world would be pretty close to Hell on earth. The Atheists can have it.

1. If the presence of suffering and evil demonstrate there is no God, how do you account for the good? There are terrible things going on in the world. There is also a lot (demonstrably more) of Goodness. There is Guinness beer and beagles and the music of Beethoven and Johnny Cash, and Victor Hugo and Flannery O’Conner and doughnuts and the Moon and the stars and steak and Chartres and Jorge Luis Borges and cactus and laughter and sex and sunrises on the beach and eclipses and Turkish Van cats and surfing and science and laughing and eating pizza with good friends and the face of my wife and my daughter and my sons and the Church and most of all, Jesus Christ. I happen to like the universe, warts and all, and like G.K. Chesterton, I feel it it is more like patriotism than optimism. There is one universe we have in which to live, it was given to us as a gift from God, and I happen to enjoy it even with its problems, as it was created for us to live in for a short time and enjoy as best we can as we serve our Maker.

The problem many Atheists have, as often revealed by their statements about how very very horrible this world is, is that they only think they are Atheists. They are actually, by temperament and belief, Gnostics. With all the hatred of raw, nasty, crusty, crude, smelly matter and the universe and the world those heretic killjoys had and inflicted upon us.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

1. Not that atheists will consider or be satisfied with the explanation (but then, why should I care if they are or not?), but as Catholics we are the disciples of a crucified Master, who did not simply endure, but welcomed suffering. Suffering, which is inevitable in life (real life, not the airy-fairy version demanded by Atheists) when experienced through surrender and grace, is an opportunity for us to draw closer to Him, and by offering up our own sorrows, to share in the joy of His sacrifice to us.
2. The old saw that if there is even the remotest, teeny-tiny possibility that someone, somewhere may have suffered gratuitously (and based on #4 supra, there may not be such a thing) is rendered moot by Chaos Theory and the myriad effects and interactions of even the smallest action. We are unable to see whether the ultimate end result of any possible instance of suffering may not be a thing of beneficence (particularly from a Christian view of the hereafter). There are many, many reasons why we are unable to make such an assessment accurately from our very limited perspective in the space-time continuum (I can post some if you’d like), so any possible dilemma that is suggested as an argument against God from the Problem of Pain becomes a trilemma and thus, the argument collapses.
3. My personal opinion (and it’s only that) on the Problem of Evil:

If an Atheist requires that God intervene directly to prevent or alleviate any act of suffering, we would have to ask HOW God would be expected to do so. We expect a Chief of Police or the Director of the FBI to reduce crime in their respective jurisdictions, but would not expect them, in most cases, to personally go out and slap the handcuffs on bank robbers and murderers. They have people for that.

If God is to prevent or reduce an act of evil or suffering, I suspect that most would consider God to have acted responsibly if he sent a moral agent under his command, such as an angel, to act in his stead, much as we say a police chief has acted responsibly in having a detective act on his behalf.

God does, in fact, have a lot of moral agents under his direct command that he can send out as his agents to reduce and prevent evil and suffering. Several billion, in fact. We have been charged directly by Jesus with loving and caring for each other as much as we do for ourselves. Quite clearly, we are all expected to be the way God intervenes to reduce suffering. We are expected to give to charity (and if Atheists knew how much money and how much help Catholic Social Services provides throughout the world, they would be staggered), but also to intervene to prevent harm to others, to comfort the afflicted, to teach, to care for the sick (as with the vast infrastructure of Catholic hospices and hospitals and sanitoria throughout the world). We are expected, through the intelligence God gave us, to learn more about the world and find new ways to reduce human suffering, which is why the Church has been in the forefront of research in science and medicine. Hospitals themselves are largely a creation of the Church, as is the Seismograph network begun by Jesuit seismologists to reduce human suffering. If there is suffering in the world, we are expected - commanded, in fact - to be the ones to reduce it.

This is true of both natural and moral evil. As Jesus implied when discussing the issue, the two often seem to be linked. The destruction of Katrina was largely caused by the venality and corruption of Louisiana officials who diverted money meant for flood control to their own coffers. The vast property damage in Haiti and Japan was worsened by the sweetheart deals between organized crime and local officials to overlook lax enforcement of building standards. Seeking justice for moral evil can itself be a Christian duty and a way to reduce the impact of both moral and natural disasters (so go to your next Blue Mass and thank the law enforcement officers there.)

So if you find the world a horrible place, get off the Internet, stop indulging in pointless and naive arguments against God, and go out and make it a better place. Join Big Brothers or volunteer at St. Vincent de Paul or mentor a Boy Scout Troop or update your CPR certification at the Red Cross or give some money to an Alzheimers or Parkinson’s Disease or AIDS research program…

 

[Arizona_Mike]

In re animal suffering, we really don’t know for sure what happens to the animal soul after death. Traditional Catholic teaching is that animals do not have an afterlife (at least as we understand it), but that’s not infallible teaching. Like many animal lovers, I hope that I can again meet some former pets, but who knows? God will make the appropriate provision for them. As one apologist on this site suggested, if we need to have pets in heaven to be happy, God will let us have pets…

 

[formerlysure]

For what it’s worth, I wanted to share something that helped me very recently. I have been in an emotional, mental and spiritual crisis for about the last five weeks, due to reliving some very difficult and traumatic experiences from my past. I guess I’m at a bit of a crossroads, wanting to move forward in my life but affraid of suffering more.

I reached out to a friend who is a priest and in so doing, I explained to him that I’ve been angry at God for years for punishing me without giving me some indication of what I did wrong to deserve the hurt to which I have been subjected. I told my friend, “I cannot figure out what I’m meant to learn and it’s so hard to accept that He even cares when I can’t figure out what I’m meant to learn from it”.

He said, “Oh, you aren’t suposed to learn anything from it, I don’t think. Bad things just happen sometimes. And God doesn’t decide that these bad things should happen - like that a woman should lose her child, or a man should experience the very young death of his wife, or that person should be raped or murdered”. He then explained his view that God sees the world over many ages instantaneously, but we experience it very slowly. He sees the big picture, not the individual instance. He is not punishing us but nor is he giving us a perfect world. He sees the planting of many seed and the growth of most but not all of them and that is a success. He does not promise us perfection, only forgiveness and compassion.

When I heard this explanation, I was able to let go of this feeling that I have been punished, and it has helped me. I was able to appreciate, for example, that when I plant a garden, I know not all the plants will thrive but most will - I consider it a success. I don’t grieve each seed that fails to grow, or each seedling that’s taken by the wind or hail, or each plant attacked by bugs or lost to draught. At any rate, thinking in that way has helped me to have better perspective and to live with things more easily.

 

[JDaniel]

Of course you are aware that this is merely an argument from ignorance.

Spock:

First, thank you for your lengthy and considered reply. Second, this makes, I think, the third time you have made this allegation. I let the others slide, but, I can’t any more. The fact of the matter is that had you thought it through, you disprove your allegation in the ensuing paragraph. There is no one on earth that is a perfect receptacle for all information. So, every argument is an argument from ignorance, even the ones that seem quite convincing.

I am willing to grant you that we do not have ALL the information. We never do. Not even in inter-human relationships, and much less so in human-God relationships.

See above!

But that does not prevent (and should not prevent) us from forming value-judgments, based upon the available information.

Now, we step away from judgments based on all the information to judgments based on “value.” One man’s Mona Lisa is another man’s garbage. Of course, you will say, “No!”, the man who thinks it is junk simply does not have (or understand) all of the information.

All the available information points to unnecessary suffering.

I thought so. Especially when you’re pre-disposed to the outcome.

No one can make a plausible argument that animal suffering due to natural causes somehow plays a part in some unspeficied “greater good”. If there is no visible and possible argument, then the only logical and rational conclusion is that there is none.

Now, you present a straw-man. You have conflated one animal’s suffering (in other posts) with universal animal suffering. Of course no one can make such an argument. It’s impossible. But, an argument could be made for each and every instance of possible animal suffering, one by one. Or, do you doubt that?

Again, the good old duck principle in action. Let us remember it every time we make a post!

That’s probably good for you to remember, too.

The only truly humane method would be eliminating all the pain. I don’t think you can do that. So far you did not even attempt. And it was a smart decision.

Of course not; I merely answered the question you posed. (Very “smart descision,” indeed. )

I am sure you do. That is, of course, your prerogative.

Thank you, Monsieur.

Now, would you mind telling me, just what is irrational about going with the available evidence?

You have answered me in your question: you had to modify your query with the adjective, “available.” If you hadn’t, I might have reminded you of it.

What is rational about going against all the available evidence?

You tell me.

1. We know about a mine collapsing, we try our best to rescue them, but we are unable to do it. Then the our lack of ability (which is contingent upon the available technology) is the one which will “create” a necessity? Having a better technology would enable us to rescue those poor miners. Is our current level of technology the arbiter of what is necessary and unnecessary suffering? That would be a lousy “conjecture”. And remember: “may be a necessity” carries no weight. You need to show what is the “greater good”, and how does our lack of ability affect it. To argue “may be a necessity” is just another instance of “argumentum ad ignoratiam”. (So many instances of this fallacy.)

You present an example of a “high-risk” situation. You have to provide an example, just for argument’s sake, of a non-risky situation. You might just as well have made the victim the driver of a motorcycle participating in a motorcycle race. Neither will get insurance from a normal insurance carrier. Maybe Lloyds of London.

1. We don’t even know about a hiker falling into a crevasse, where he will die of exposure, the lack of water. Since we are ignorant of this fact, a rescue operation cannot even be mounted. Does this ignorance somehow “trigger” a greater good, which will justify the death of this poor hiker? Come on… The only valid conjecture is that God does not care about the fate of those miners, about the fate of that hiker,

Really? Another high-risk example?

about the fate of those who die in an Earthquake or a tsunami - and that conjecture is solidly based upon the lack of interference initiated by God.

No one that I have ever heard of has said that “God’s interferes.” He does not interfere. All that occurs - as I have said repeatedly, in thread after thread - is the roll-out of Creation. God does provide all of us with His Providence. I have not done an exhaustive search on the subject, but, I wonder just how many people who have been injured, or killed, by earthquakes and tsunamis lived in locales that might not get hazard insurance either?

That is the actual, irrefutable evidence. Do you dispute it? If you do, on what grounds?

See above.

That it contradicts the teaching of the church?

Talk about “gratuitous.”

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

No, I do not “refuse” to see. That is not the way it should be presented. I genuinely do not see it.

But, I (and probably many others herein) can’t understand why.

Please share the evidence. I am most willing to contemplate it. But, please, bear in mind: an “evidence” cannot be something that must be accepted a-priori. It cannot lead to a circular reasoning. I really like to see the presentation of all the available evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. I have nothing to lose if you can present a valid case and prove that I am wrong. Actually, I have a lot to gain by “losing”. Can you say the same thing? If you do, I will be most pleasantly surprised. No believer has ever dared to say: “if the evidence proves that there is no God, or that God is not benevolent - then so be it!”.

That is something that I’d like to do for you. But, that will take time and much consideration, and this is not the thread for that. Give me a little time and I’ll start another thread and notify you.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Just in case anyone reading these posts is curious, I have communicated with Spock for probably over two years, in and out, and more or less communication. Please don’t assume that the way either of us talks to the other is a sign of disrespect. I love and respect Spock. I have nothing but the highest regard for him and his intellect. Anyone that is as good as he is in debate is worthy of some exasperation. Right?

I don’t think I have enough intelligence to summarily smack him down. So, any help you want to give, please do - and that goes for both sides of the issue.

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

First, thank you for your lengthy and considered reply. Second, this makes, I think, the third time you have made this allegation. I let the others slide, but, I can’t any more. The fact of the matter is that had you thought it through, you disprove your allegation in the ensuing paragraph. There is no one on earth that is a perfect receptacle for all information. So, every argument is an argument from ignorance, even the ones that seem quite convincing.

Argument from ignorance is not the same as arguing from imperfect information. See here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance . Quoting a part below:

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or “appeal to ignorance”, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.
To apply to the current problem, the believers say that God’s benevolence should be accepted, because we might not have enough hard proof to the contrary. They say that there “might” be some unknown and unknowable “greater good” which could be used if only we had the pertinent information.

As I (and others) have pointed out so many times, that is not sufficient. We are willing to start from your hypothesis; we are willing to start with the assumption that God is benevolent. After this assumption we start to investigate the real world. Obviously, in the real world there can never be 100% certainty. We always go by the avaliable evidence. That is why a hypothesis is never really “proven”, it is substantiated to the degree when it is “proven beyond any doubt”, or “proven beyond any reasonable doubt”, or “supported by the preponderance of evidence”.

There are quite a few (many) instances of explainable pain and suffering (I always take pains not become dogmatic, and I am willing to point out the correct arguments, if and when they happen). However, the amount of unexplainable pain and suffering is overwhelming. And that is where the problem becomes serious.

In your current post you tried to “sweep it under the rug” by saying that I talk about “high-risk” scenarios! That is not relevant at all. Previously your explicit point was that sometimes we are unable to help people who are in need, and that “lack of ability to help” somehow makes those instances “logically necessary”. You said: if we can help others, then the pain and suffering are not logically necessary, but if we are unable to help then they are??? Come on. How can our lack of knowledge about an accident, or our lack of ability to help the victims constitute a “logical necessity”? Does our lack of ability lead to some “greater good”? (And, yes, to say that we don’t know that it does not, would be another example of argument from ignorance.)

I thought so. Especially when you’re pre-disposed to the outcome.

Except I am not predisposed in any way. I am starting from your point of view, then examine the available evidence, and let the chips fall where they may.

Now, you present a straw-man. You have conflated one animal’s suffering (in other posts) with universal animal suffering. Of course no one can make such an argument. It’s impossible. But, an argument could be made for each and every instance of possible animal suffering, one by one. Or, do you doubt that?

I most certainly doubt it. Start with a plausible scenario (fire in a forest) pick one random animal and give me a logical chain of thought just what kind of “greater good” will (NOT MIGHT!) come out of the fiery death of that animal, which is so great that it justifies the “method” of its death. You said that you can make a one-by-one justification for every instance. We are not theorizing here any more about some “might”. What is that greater good?

That’s probably good for you to remember, too.

Indeed. Looks like I slipped somewhere, otherwise you would not remind me of it. Where did I slip? I am very cognizant of this principle, and if you can “rub my nose” into my error, I will be grateful to you.

No one that I have ever heard of has said that “God’s interferes.” He does not interfere. All that occurs - as I have said repeatedly, in thread after thread - is the roll-out of Creation. God does provide all of us with His Providence. I have not done an exhaustive search on the subject, but, I wonder just how many people who have been injured, or killed, by earthquakes and tsunamis lived in locales that might not get hazard insurance either?

Uh-oh. I need to remind you of the dogma (theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm)

II.9: God keeps all created things in existence..

Or (jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm)

**69. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
70. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.) **

This dogma tells you that God constantly, actively and consciously “interacts” with the creation. Maybe you need to investigate your faith a little deeper.

 

[Spirithound]

…the believers say that God’s benevolence should be accepted, because we might not have enough hard proof to the contrary. They say that there “might” be some unknown and unknowable “greater good” which could be used if only we had the pertinent information.

As I (and others) have pointed out so many times, that is not sufficient. We are willing to start from your hypothesis; we are willing to start with the assumption that God is benevolent.

No, the believer begins by accepting God’s benevolence because that is the standard position of Christianity. Secondly, those believers who say that there “might” be some unknown and unknowable “greater good” are wimps. I say that there definitely IS a greater good to be attained from suffering. We take that position from the Bible, again standard position of Christianity (Romans 5:3-5, Jeremiah 29:11). Also note that this is not an argument from ignorance, it is an appeal to authority.

In your current post you tried to “sweep it under the rug” by saying that I talk about “high-risk” scenarios! That is not relevant at all.

Our entire economy is based on risk. The Wall Street crowd talks about risk in terms of going bankrupt, but the front-line workers talk about it in a very physical sense. If mining were not a dangerous activity, everybody would do it. Everybody would use dynamite, and nobody would get hurt because remember, there is no risk involved here. The prices of gold, diamonds, iron and other ores would plummet due to the saturation of the market.

Many people derive pleasure from risk. If nobody every died from (attempting to) skydiving, the vast majority of the people who currently do it, would not. It would be a sight-seeing trip, not an adrenaline rush. Mountain climbing would become an everyday experience because nobody ever starved, dehydrated, froze, or fell into a crevasse. There would also be no sports. I’m taking it down a level here; I would say that most people who play hockey do not do so simply because there is a chance they might die. But the training would become a moot point. When you train, there is a risk that you will overexert yourself, pull a muscle, twist an ankle. Without these risks, everybody would be as awesome a player as Wayne Gretzky.

Previously your explicit point was that sometimes we are unable to help people who are in need, and that “lack of ability to help” somehow makes those instances “logically necessary”. You said: if we can help others, then the pain and suffering are not logically necessary, but if we are unable to help then they are??? Come on. How can our lack of knowledge about an accident, or our lack of ability to help the victims constitute a “logical necessity”? Does our lack of ability lead to some “greater good”?

I depart from your interpretation of my friend here. When people suffer, it is for their own greater good. When the suffering has been relieved, the suffering has achieved its full good. There is no need to wonder whether the paramedics have sufficient knowledge of the good being wrought in the person; this is left to God’s Providence.

Such is my position. It is internally logical. Frankly I think that is all the OP was looking for.

I am holding off on talking about the animals; some inconsiderate clod (myself, of course) has put my copy of “The Problem of Pain” in a box somewhere.