Why would God include carnivory, parasitism, and disease in creation?

[davidv]

Isn’t it strange that two problems are always overlooked by the “apologists”.

1. Humanity has only arrived very late (a few hundred thousand years ago) unto Earth, which was already teeming with life, carnivores, parasites and diseases. Therefore it is a logical absurdity that the “fall” was the causative factor for these “doubleplusungood” features.
2. It is also overlooked that God explicitly cursed the creation (ain’t that just one loving “father” would do?).

You either take Genesis verbatim, and then it was God, who cursed and destroyed the world and then you must be just like Young Earth believers, or you take the Genesis allegorically, and then you are stuck with the problem of having all those “uncool” features around WAY before humanity would have “fallen”. But doublethink is such a wonderful idea - to keep two contradictory concepts in mind at the same time, and believing both of them. I tried to acquire this nifty ability, but so far I failed spectacularly.

So you guys and gals, EITHER read your Bible, OR learn some science about the Earth, so next time you will not make such a fool of yourselves by giving such inane answers.

It not either/or. Faith and reason are complementary. Both pursue truth. Your either/or claim above is the true inanity.

 

[Serious]

It not either/or. Faith and reason are complementary. Both pursue truth. Your either/or claim above is the true inanity.

This is truly funny coming from someone who said: “God didn’t do it. Man did as a consequence of sin.” and quoted God from the Bible: “Cursed be the ground because of you!” Doublethink at its finest. Also explain please how did man’s “sin” invoke the OP’s “carnivory, parasitism and diseases” millenia before humanity even appeared on the scene. And what kind of magic turned the grazers into carnivores? Or created the disease carrying microbes. On second thought, don’t bother. The amount of irrationality and doublethink presented by the “apologists” was more than I can handle in one day.

 

[tonyrey]

Isn’t it strange that two problems are always overlooked by the “apologists”.

1. Humanity has only arrived very late (a few hundred thousand years ago) unto Earth, which was already teeming with life, carnivores, parasites and diseases. Therefore it is a logical absurdity that the “fall” was the causative factor for these “doubleplusungood” features.
2. It is also overlooked that God explicitly cursed the creation (ain’t that just one loving “father” would do?).

You either take Genesis verbatim, and then it was God, who cursed and destroyed the world and then you must be just like Young Earth believers, or you take the Genesis allegorically, and then you are stuck with the problem of having all those “uncool” features around WAY before humanity would have “fallen”. But doublethink is such a wonderful idea - to keep two contradictory concepts in mind at the same time, and believing both of them. I tried to acquire this nifty ability, but so far I failed spectacularly.

So you guys and gals, EITHER read your Bible, OR learn some science about the Earth, so next time you will not make such a fool of yourselves by giving such inane answers.

1. You are obviously unaware that the Church accepts evolution.
2. It is moral evil that is responsible for the bloodstained history of the human race.
3. Physical evil is the result of physical causes.
4. Your last sentence is not only false but contravenes the first Forum Conduct Rule.

 

[tonyrey]

This is truly funny coming from someone who said: “God didn’t do it. Man did as a consequence of sin.” and quoted God from the Bible: “Cursed be the ground because of you!” Doublethink at its finest. Also explain please how did man’s “sin” invoke the OP’s “carnivory, parasitism and diseases” millenia before humanity even appeared on the scene. And what kind of magic turned the grazers into carnivores? Or created the disease carrying microbes. On second thought, don’t bother. The amount of irrationality and doublethink presented by the “apologists” was more than I can handle in one day.

The irrationality and doublethink presented by you can be disposed of in less than one minute!

What kind of magic turned the grazers and carnivores into rational beings?

 

[Serious]

1. You are obviously unaware that the Church accepts evolution.
2. It is moral evil that is responsible for the bloodstained history of the human race.
3. Physical evil is the result of physical causes.
4. Your last sentence is not only false but contravenes the first Forum Conduct Rule.

1. No, I am very much aware that the church does not either accept or deny evolution. It is left to the individuals to make up their mind. And evolution has nothing to do with the OP’s question.
2. The existence of carnivores, diseases and parasites cannot be chalked up to the (alleged) fall of humans. There is no time-travel into the past. Actions cannot have retroactive consequences - is that something that surprises you? Your “moral evil” is totally irrelevant in this thread.
3. Physical evil is an oxymoron.
4. My last sentence was simply an advice. It cannot be either true or false. If the mods will think that the advice was inappropriate, I am sure they will take proper action.

The irrationality and doublethink presented by you can be disposed of in less than one minute!

What kind of magic turned the grazers and carnivores into rational beings?

You would never understand, so don’t worry your purty lil head about it. And you should answer the question first before you ask your own. Elementary courtesy, my dear Watson.

 

[Blacksword]

Isn’t it strange that two problems are always overlooked by the “apologists”.

1. Humanity has only arrived very late (a few hundred thousand years ago) unto Earth, which was already teeming with life, carnivores, parasites and diseases. Therefore it is a logical absurdity that the “fall” was the causative factor for these “doubleplusungood” features.
2. It is also overlooked that God explicitly cursed the creation (ain’t that just one loving “father” would do?).

You either take Genesis verbatim, and then it was God, who cursed and destroyed the world and then you must be just like Young Earth believers, or you take the Genesis allegorically, and then you are stuck with the problem of having all those “uncool” features around WAY before humanity would have “fallen”. But doublethink is such a wonderful idea - to keep two contradictory concepts in mind at the same time, and believing both of them. I tried to acquire this nifty ability, but so far I failed spectacularly.

So you guys and gals, EITHER read your Bible, OR learn some science about the Earth, so next time you will not make such a fool of yourselves by giving such inane answers.

Please read my posts again, there is no double think or contradiction going on there. I’m well aware of the realities of science and accept them heartily. The Genesis account is not meant to be read as a history or science book. It’s allegory and myth with important theological truths therein. And again, I’m not ignoring thae facts of predation and so forth, nor did Toneyrey. I’m saying rather, simply, it’s easy to armchair quarterback about the nature of the known universe and world we live in, yet none of us can really even imagine doing any better. Everything works wonderfully, and God said in the beginning “It is very good”. He didn’t design perfection, and that’s really His business, not mine. And stop crying over the animals so much please, I’d cry myself if I couldn’t eat a nice steak anymore! The evolution of life on Earth got Us here: sentient, rational, spiritual beings capable of communing with God. That’s pretty good I’d say, and if one disagrees I ask again: show how you’d really do it better. And not just by changing the one or two aspects of biological life you don’t like because we know it can’t work that way. You’d have to account for the millions of changes that would flow ultimately from those few small changes you want to make.

 

[Blacksword]

1. No, I am very much aware that the church does not either accept or deny evolution. It is left to the individuals to make up their mind. And evolution has nothing to do with the OP’s question.
2. The existence of carnivores, diseases and parasites cannot be chalked up to the (alleged) fall of humans. There is no time-travel into the past. Actions cannot have retroactive consequences - is that something that surprises you? Your “moral evil” is totally irrelevant in this thread.
3. Physical evil is an oxymoron.
4. My last sentence was simply an advice. It cannot be either true or false. If the mods will think that the advice was inappropriate, I am sure they will take proper action.

You would never understand, so don’t worry your purty lil head about it. And you should answer the question first before you ask your own. Elementary courtesy, my dear Watson.

If you’re looking for honest, charitable discussion please ease off the condescension and self-superior tone. You seem VERY angry, and somewhat arrogant. Please calm down so the discussion can get somewhere.

 

[davidv]

This is truly funny coming from someone who said: “God didn’t do it. Man did as a consequence of sin.” and quoted God from the Bible: “Cursed be the ground because of you!” Doublethink at its finest. Also explain please how did man’s “sin” invoke the OP’s “carnivory, parasitism and diseases” millenia before humanity even appeared on the scene. And what kind of magic turned the grazers into carnivores? Or created the disease carrying microbes. On second thought, don’t bother. The amount of irrationality and doublethink presented by the “apologists” was more than I can handle in one day.

Why do you continue to commit the fallacy of a false dicotomy? Invalid arguments, and emotional outbursts are a sure sign of irrationality.

 

[Poseidon]

Isn’t it strange that two problems are always overlooked by the “apologists”.

1. Humanity has only arrived very late (a few hundred thousand years ago) unto Earth, which was already teeming with life, carnivores, parasites and diseases. Therefore it is a logical absurdity that the “fall” was the causative factor for these “doubleplusungood” features.
2. It is also overlooked that God explicitly cursed the creation (ain’t that just one loving “father” would do?).

You either take Genesis verbatim, and then it was God, who cursed and destroyed the world and then you must be just like Young Earth believers, or you take the Genesis allegorically, and then you are stuck with the problem of having all those “uncool” features around WAY before humanity would have “fallen”. But doublethink is such a wonderful idea - to keep two contradictory concepts in mind at the same time, and believing both of them. I tried to acquire this nifty ability, but so far I failed spectacularly.

So you guys and gals, EITHER read your Bible, OR learn some science about the Earth, so next time you will not make such a fool of yourselves by giving such inane answers.

Condescension aside, Serious has a very good point. Many people are saying that man caused all of these things to happen by means of the Fall. But it’s a scientific fact that dinosaurs were eating each other millions of years before humans even existed, so even if a literal Fall happened it can’t be the reason nature is so cruel (unless the Fall changed the past as well as the future).

There’s also the point that even if you accept a literal interpretation of Genesis, that Adam and Eve ate the fruit and everything came from that, it still says that God cursed the earth and made it that way intentionally. So no matter how you look at it, God made a system that works very well, but in a very nasty, cruel way.

 

[Qoeleth]

The loving Father described by Jesus wouldn’t have created us if

“The dead are happier than the living. Happier than both is he who has never even existed.” !

But, Jesus says: “Scripture cannot be rejected.”

Regarding Genesis: “et vidit Deus quod esset bonum”

“Esset” is subjective, not indicative. “God saw that it might have b**een good…”

 

[Qoeleth]

Isn’t it strange that two problems are always overlooked by the “apologists”.

1. Humanity has only arrived very late (a few hundred thousand years ago) unto Earth, which was already teeming with life, carnivores, parasites and diseases. Therefore it is a logical absurdity that the “fall” was the causative factor for these “doubleplusungood” features.
2. It is also overlooked that God explicitly cursed the creation (ain’t that just one loving “father” would do?).

You either take Genesis verbatim, and then it was God, who cursed and destroyed the world and then you must be just like Young Earth believers, or you take the Genesis allegorically, and then you are stuck with the problem of having all those “uncool” features around WAY before humanity would have “fallen”. But doublethink is such a wonderful idea - to keep two contradictory concepts in mind at the same time, and believing both of them. I tried to acquire this nifty ability, but so far I failed spectacularly.

So you guys and gals, EITHER read your Bible, OR learn some science about the Earth, so next time you will not make such a fool of yourselves by giving such inane answers.

OK, I’ll attempt to give a better reply than most ‘apologists’. The Genesis account is an allegory. The main thing it tells us is that evil (the serpent) was present as a force in our universe since the beginning, and that the suffering of the world is as a consequence of original sin. Not literally of course- but insofar as existence itself is a sin (but not literally). “Life is a punishment for the crime of having been born.” Not literally true, but a proverb which expresses the condition and experience of the universe- that all existence is suffering- the first Noble Truth of Buddhism, and the message which we get from the Genesis myth. This awareness is the starting point of religion.

The God of the Genesis myth is a mythological, somewhat primitive idea of God- which, yes, does not match precisely the idea of God as presented by Jesus, who is forgiving. The image of God we get in Genesis should not be treated as any more ‘real’ than the myth of the serpent and the fruit itself.

 

[tonyrey]

1. I am very much aware that the church does not either accept or deny evolution. It is left to the individuals to make up their mind.

“Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make **a convincing case **for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.”

• The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution

philvaz.com/apologetics/p80.htm

1. The existence of carnivores, diseases and parasites cannot be chalked up to the (alleged) fall of humans.

Physical evil is the result of physical causes.

Your “moral evil” is totally irrelevant in this thread.

If moral evil is irrelevant your objection collapses because you are implying carnivores, diseases and parasites disprove the existence of a loving God.

1. Physical evil is an oxymoron.

False. Consult any book about the Problem of Evil.

1. My last sentence was simply an advice. It cannot be either true or false. If the mods will think that the advice was inappropriate, I am sure they will take proper action.

“So you guys and gals, EITHER read your Bible, OR learn some science about the Earth, so next time you will not make such a fool of yourselves by giving such inane answers.”
N.B. **“Messages posted to this board must be polite…”
**
You also make the false assumption that Catholics are ignorant either of the Bible or science.

What kind of magic turned the grazers and carnivores into rational beings?

You would never understand, so don’t worry your purty lil head about it.

Evasion. What kind of magic turned the grazers and carnivores into rational beings?

And you should answer the question first before you ask your own.

"And what kind of magic turned the grazers into carnivores? " is a sarcastic, rhetorical question that does not require an answer.

You have also failed to refute the following points:

1. God did not design carnivory, parasitism, and disease any more than He designed lechery, nepotism or child abuse.
2. Conflict and interference are inevitable in a physical system where billions of creatures are pursuing different goals.
3. The number of microbes that cause disease is a minute proportion of those that exist.
4. Viruses are usually more harmful but even they perform useful functions.
5. Since malfunctions presuppose functions purpose is more basic than the absence of purpose.
6. 90% of mutations are disadvantageous but they have promoted rather than prevented the successful development of life.
7. Predation is swifter and efficient than a system in which animals suffer a lingering death from injury or disease.
8. All living organisms are interdependent and cannot exist as isolated individuals.
9. The development of parasites presupposes the development of successful organisms.
10. The occurrence of abnormality is inevitable in a physical system.
11. The laws of nature do not take into account individual needs.
12. The immense value of life far outweighs its drawbacks.

You have also failed to answer the following questions:

Do you agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life had never existed on this planet?

Do you regret having been born?

Do you wish your family and friends had never been born?

 

[tonyrey]

Condescension aside, Serious has a very good point. Many people are saying that man caused all of these things to happen by means of the Fall. But it’s a scientific fact that dinosaurs were eating each other millions of years before humans even existed, so even if a literal Fall happened it can’t be the reason nature is so cruel (unless the Fall changed the past as well as the future).

There’s also the point that even if you accept a literal interpretation of Genesis, that Adam and Eve ate the fruit and everything came from that, it still says that God cursed the earth and made it that way intentionally. So no matter how you look at it, God made a system that works very well, but in a very nasty, cruel way.

You have ignored the fact that Genesis is allegorical.

 

[tonyrey]

But, Jesus says: “Scripture cannot be rejected.”

Regarding Genesis: “et vidit Deus quod esset bonum”

“Esset” is subjective, not indicative. “God saw that it might have been good…”

It is absurd to believe God created a universe which is **not **good:

" Look at the lilies of the field and how they grow. They don’t work or make their clothing, yet Solomon in all his glory was not dressed as beautifully as they are.
And if God cares so wonderfully for wildflowers that are here today and thrown into the fire tomorrow, he will certainly care for you. Why do you have so little faith?" Matt- 6:28

NB Jesus did not say “Every statement in Scripture must be interpreted literally”.

 

[Sair]

1. God did not design carnivory, parasitism, and disease any more than He designed lechery, nepotism or child abuse.
2. Conflict and interference are inevitable in a physical system where billions of creatures are pursuing different goals.
3. The number of microbes that cause disease is a minute proportion of those that exist.
4. Viruses are usually more harmful but even they perform useful functions.
5. Since malfunctions presuppose functions purpose is more basic than the absence of purpose.
6. 90% of mutations are disadvantageous but they have promoted rather than prevented the successful development of life.
7. Predation is swifter and efficient than a system in which animals suffer a lingering death from injury or disease.
8. All living organisms are interdependent and cannot exist as isolated individuals.
9. The development of parasites presupposes the development of successful organisms.
10. The occurrence of abnormality is inevitable in a physical system.
11. The laws of nature do not take into account individual needs.

Everything you have thus far listed suggests undirected evolutionary development of life, rather than considered planning and creation on the part of a benevolent deity. If such an entity existed, we might expect some bias towards sentient beings, particularly those who were properly worshipful. Since we see nothing of the kind, there appears little to choose between the somewhat-benevolent-but-what-the-hey God you describe above, and no gods whatsoever.

1. The immense value of life far outweighs its drawbacks.

The immense value of life to whom, and upon what scale? I have no reason to doubt that my own life is valuable to me, and also to my friends and family - just as their lives are valuable to me, through shared experience and social bonding. Is my individual life important to a person who has never met me and knows nothing about me? Probably not so much. Do we matter to the rest of the universe? Would the universe itself end if there were no life on earth? Probably not. The best we can assume is that every sentient being values its own life, to a greater or lesser degree. We can, if we choose, respect the value that others accord their own lives - especially if we would like them to do the same for us. But value, unless one is wedded to religious dogma, is a lived experience, not an immutable divine prescription that overrides our own emotions and instincts.

 

[tonyrey]

*1. God did not design carnivory, parasitism, and disease any more than He designed lechery, nepotism or child abuse.

Your objection is anthropomorphic because it ignores or underestimates the value of other forms of life apart from “those who were properly worshipful”. What sort of bias do you have in mind?

12. The immense value of life far outweighs its drawbacks.

The immense value of life to whom, and upon what scale?

To every individual. The question of scale doesn’t arise: it is a question of existing or not existing.

I have no reason to doubt that my own life is valuable to me, and also to my friends and family - just as their lives are valuable to me, through shared experience and social bonding. Is my individual life important to a person who has never met me and knows nothing about me? Probably not so much.

What has happened to your belief in empathy?

Do we matter to the rest of the universe? Would the universe itself end if there were no life on earth? Probably not. The best we can assume is that every sentient being values its own life, to a greater or lesser degree.

Whether it values its life is irrelevant. The mere fact that it exists, develops and experiences pleasure and fulfilment is a sign of its value.

We can, if we choose, respect the value that others accord their own lives - especially if we would like them to do the same for us. But value, unless one is wedded to religious dogma, is a lived experience, not an immutable divine prescription that overrides our own emotions and instincts.

Where do you obtain your power to choose?

 

[Sair]

Your objection is anthropomorphic because it ignores or underestimates the value of other forms of life apart from “those who were properly worshipful”. What sort of bias do you have in mind?

The kind of bias that would appear to interpret ‘sentient life’ as ‘human life’. Makes it rather ironic that you accuse me of anthropomorphism! In any case, the God of Classical Theism is generally portrayed as favouring humans, whom, supposedly, were made in this god’s image. Is this the god you believe in, or not?

To every individual. The question of scale doesn’t arise: it is a question of existing or not existing.

You appear to want to say that everything that exists is valuable in and of itself, merely by existing. I have already agreed that individuals may value their own lives. But your argument implies that there has to be an overarching value system independent of any particular valuer. I would suggest that in order for something to be valuable, there has to be someone to whom it is of value. This argument is often levelled against atheists in the form of saying that if there is no god, those things and beings valuable to no-one else are expendable in a universe without a god to value them. But according to your argument here, that doesn’t follow, since anything that exists is valuable just because it is.

What has happened to your belief in empathy?

Empathy has certain minimum requirements, you know - for someone to empathise with me in any way, they would at the very least have to be aware of my existence. Hypotheticals don’t really count.

Whether it values its life is irrelevant. The mere fact that it exists, develops and experiences pleasure and fulfilment is a sign of its value.

A sign of its value or a basis for its value? I would suggest the latter.

Where do you obtain your power to choose?

I don’t know. Quantum mechanics? In any case, that’s irrelevant to the present discussion.

 

[Poseidon]

This discussion is getting way off topic. Can we go back to the original question, please?

 

[Sair]

Back on topic:

God did not design carnivory, parasitism, and disease any more than He designed lechery, nepotism or child abuse.

I’d ask how anyone would actually know that god didn’t design all these things, but that probably wouldn’t move the discussion forward much.

After all, the working of the complex system that is life on earth and its evolution is driven by the need to meet the challenges of staying alive and passing on one’s genetic information to the next generation, and predation, parasitism and disease (caused by viruses and bacteria trying to stay alive and pass on their genes) are all methods of meeting said challenges. So if anyone actually designed this system, they built these features in as well, because it wouldn’t run without them.

It’s quite clear that the mechanisms by which the natural world operates care not for the needs or preferences of sentient beings - that is why humans have generally felt the need to invent gods, so that they can feel like there’s someone powerful that cares for them in the face of the totally indifferent power of nature. The God of Classical Theism (usually the go-to guy when it comes to identifying the ‘intelligent designer’ ID theorists claim is discernible) is a personal god who undoubtedly cares for his creations. Yet he is supposed to have built a universe that operates according to laws that must cause sentient beings to suffer. Doesn’t sound quite kosher, so to speak. The claim that the designer could not have built the universe in any other way suggests that whoever the designer was, he/she/it is also subject to certain laws and limitations - not a match for the omnipotent God of Classical Theism who is claimed by various believers to have created the laws of physics and logic and so forth.

The simplest answer to the OP’s question of why god would include carnivory, parasitism and disease in creation is that a loving creator god doesn’t actually exist. The development of the concept of a personal god who takes an interest in human affairs meets needs other than the explanation of why certain features of the natural world exist. Most people are not willing to accept the logical extent of crediting their god with creation, and that is why the problem of evil has bedevilled philosophers for centuries, as generations of thinkers have tried to explain their way out of this bind.

 

[Qoeleth]

Back on topic:

God did not design carnivory, parasitism, and disease any more than He designed lechery, nepotism or child abuse.

I’d ask how anyone would actually know that god didn’t design all these things, but that probably wouldn’t move the discussion forward much.

After all, the working of the complex system that is life on earth and its evolution is driven by the need to meet the challenges of staying alive and passing on one’s genetic information to the next generation, and predation, parasitism and disease (caused by viruses and bacteria trying to stay alive and pass on their genes) are all methods of meeting said challenges. So if anyone actually designed this system, they built these features in as well, because it wouldn’t run without them.

It’s quite clear that the mechanisms by which the natural world operates care not for the needs or preferences of sentient beings - that is why humans have generally felt the need to invent gods, so that they can feel like there’s someone powerful that cares for them in the face of the totally indifferent power of nature. The God of Classical Theism (usually the go-to guy when it comes to identifying the ‘intelligent designer’ ID theorists claim is discernible) is a personal god who undoubtedly cares for his creations. Yet he is supposed to have built a universe that operates according to laws that must cause sentient beings to suffer. Doesn’t sound quite kosher, so to speak. The claim that the designer could not have built the universe in any other way suggests that whoever the designer was, he/she/it is also subject to certain laws and limitations - not a match for the omnipotent God of Classical Theism who is claimed by various believers to have created the laws of physics and logic and so forth.

The simplest answer to the OP’s question of why god would include carnivory, parasitism and disease in creation is that a loving creator god doesn’t actually exist. The development of the concept of a personal god who takes an interest in human affairs meets needs other than the explanation of why certain features of the natural world exist. Most people are not willing to accept the logical extent of crediting their god with creation, and that is why the problem of evil has bedevilled philosophers for centuries, as generations of thinkers have tried to explain their way out of this bind.

It wrong to explain it scientifically- the language of God is myth. In the “God myth” we are engaged with, God is the source of all good, and the Devil/original sin, human folly or willfulness, etc. is the source of all evil. These terms “good” and “evil” do not reflect inherent qualities, but human experience. So, in our God-narrative, God is all good. He is also held to be all-powerful. This is a logical inconsistency in the myth, we freely admit. But this, logical consitency is only at the exoteric level- on a deeper level the universe is only temporal, and therefore, properly speaking, non-existent- and thus evil does not ‘really’ exist.

As for the “Laws of Nature” these, are another myth altogether, a different language game, with different rules.

You speak about “the concept of a personal god who takes an interest in human affairs”- and this is precisely what it is, a concept, a mytheme. But it is a mytheme in which Christians choose (or need) to believe. And why not?

Leave logic at the door when entering Church, when entering the myth. Thinks of the stories of the Bible as a series of verbal images, of a collage of things which don’t reconcile (and why should they?). Take up the God-narrative, which provides consolation in the face of troubles, moral direction and meaning.