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

[tonyrey]

Because a good steak makes for a very tasty meal indeed!

Not for vegetarians! As a child I was put off from eating rabbit for the rest of my life after seeing a skinned rabbit hanging in the butcher’s shop…

 

[reconman]

Not for vegetarians! As a child I was put off from eating rabbit for the rest of my life after seeing a skinned rabbit hanging in the butcher’s shop…

True, not for vegetarians. But I have killed many rabbits. They also make a very tasty meal (if cooked properly)!

 

[tonyrey]

True, not for vegetarians. But I have killed many rabbits. They also make a very tasty meal (if cooked properly)!

As an adult I have killed, plucked, cooked and eaten chickens but realised - after reading “Raw Energy” - that eating carcasses is an unhealthy habit (quite apart from any other considerations)…

 

[Sair]

1. I was careful not to specify who the individual was.
2. You clearly stated - **and even gave reasons why **- you would put the life of your dog before the life of a stranger.
3. If you are honest - and wise - you will retract your calumny.

Calumny? Please - you have taken every opportunity you possibly could to rehash my supposed failings as a member of the human species, much less a religious one.

It’s obvious that Poseidon took your comments as being universally directed at unbelievers, so I felt it was appropriate to correct this impression.

My reasons for favouring the life of a dog in whom I have invested responsibility over that of a human infant for whom I have no responsibility, other than membership of the same species, should be entirely obvious to anyone who does not buy in to the idea that humans are worthy of consideration over and above every other animal, regardless of sentience.

 

[PRmerger]

I find that goodness and Truth are independent of religious identification and dogmatization.

And this is very Catholic of you to say, Gaber!

in the original sense of the word, perhaps.

No, Gaber. In the doctrinal sense:

No, actually, as I might have said, I was quite proficient in Catholic doctrine and the understanding thereof…

Call it what you will, what I said** was not from doctrine** but from observation and experience.

And this why I think you are quite unfamiliar with Catholicism, despite your pleas to the contrary.

What you proclaimed was, indeed, from doctrine.

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”

That you don’t recognize that as doctrine is evidence to me of my position.

You are, sadly, NOT quite proficient in Catholicism as you think you are.

It most likely was not your fault though, Gaber, so no need to feel badly. The Church, in the past, has done an abysmal job providing nourishing catechesis for her flock. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

It isn’t faith in his existence, it’s reason to believe that he probably exists. It’s not the same as belief in a higher being. It’s more like me saying “somewhere in the universe there exists a planet of earth-like proportions in the Goldilocks zone where life could possibly appear, other than earth.” I don’t have faith that this planet exists, I have reason to believe in it based on probability. It’s an educated guess.

Fair enough. You are using *reason alone *to determine the probability of the existence of this Phantom Atheistic Kolbe.

You do know that Believers argue by reason alone to determine the probability of the existence of God, right?

And it’s curious to me that you have a very, very low demand for evidence for the PAK’s existence, but an extremely high demand for evidence for the existence of God. Why is that?

 

[tonyrey]

Calumny? Please - you have taken every opportunity you possibly could to rehash my supposed failings as a member of the human species, much less a religious one.

That is yet another false unsubstantiated assertion - which is also irrelevant to the topic.

It’s obvious that Poseidon took your comments as being universally directed at unbelievers, so I felt it was appropriate to correct this impression.

It was unnecessary to do so because I had already corrected that impression ten hours previously.

My reasons for favouring the life of a dog in whom I have invested responsibility over that of a human infant for whom I have no responsibility, other than membership of the same species, should be entirely obvious to anyone who does not buy in to the idea that humans are worthy of consideration over and above every other animal, regardless of sentience.

1. That statement is confirmation of the fact that you would deliberately sacrifice the life of a person for an animal.
2. The fact that the animal is an animal "in whom **I **have invested responsibility " is irrelevant.
3. If responsibility is self-invested there is no reason why others should consider it a valid obligation which overrides the right to life of a person.
4. That view is also opposed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In some countries, there exists a legal requirement for citizens to assist **people **in distress, unless doing so would put themselves or others in harm’s way… As of 2012 there were such laws in countries including[1] Albania, Argentina[24], Austria,[25] Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia,[26] Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,[27] Germany,[28] Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Spain, and Switzerland.

In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions…

In Brazil, a citizen is required by law to provide help to anyone under grave and imminent danger, the injured and disabled and abandoned** children **as long as it is safe to do so…
…
In Quebec, which makes use of civil law, there is a general duty to rescue in its Charter of Rights: “Every human being whose life is in peril has a right to assistance…”

Legal requirements for a duty to rescue do not pertain in all nations, states, or localities. However, a moral or ethical duty to rescue may exist even where there is no legal duty to rescue. There are a number of potential justifications for such a duty.

One sort of justification is general and applies regardless of role-related relationships (doctor to patient; firefighter to citizen, etc.). Under this general justification, persons have a duty to rescue other persons in distress by virtue of their common humanity, regardless of the specific skills of the rescuer or the nature of the victim’s distress.

These would justify cases of rescue and in fact make such rescue a duty even between strangers. They explain why philosopher Peter Singer suggests that if we saw a child drowning and could intervene to save him, we should do so, no matter the damage to our clothing or shoes or how late it might make us for a meeting. Singer goes on to say that we should also attempt to rescue distant strangers, not just nearby children, because globalization has made it possible for us to do so.

wikipedia

No legal system in the world imposes an obligation - or even a justification - to put animals before persons.

 

[Poseidon]

Fair enough. You are using *reason alone *to determine the probability of the existence of this Phantom Atheistic Kolbe.

You do know that Believers argue by reason alone to determine the probability of the existence of God, right?

And it’s curious to me that you have a very, very low demand for evidence for the PAK’s existence, but an extremely high demand for evidence for the existence of God. Why is that?

I don’t think that believers use reason alone to argue for the existence of God. Certainly reason is a tool in their arsenal, but faith is another (perhaps bigger) tool. I personally am convinced that pure reason will inevitably lead one to a rejection of theism, but obviously you won’t agree with me there–we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

And as for the standards of evidence, they really aren’t all that different. All I am saying about the PAK is that he/she is likely to exist. I have no evidence to say definitively that this person does exist, I just think it’s probable.

I find the existence of God to be unlikely, and so I conclude that he probably doesn’t exist. It’s the same process. You are correct that I would require more evidence to be convinced of God than to be convinced of the PAK, but that’s because it’s a much more extraordinary claim and so requires extraordinary evidence. You do the same thing - for example, if I told you I had a sandwich for lunch you’d believe me just by my word. If I told you I had a sandwich for lunch in Paris and then jetted off to Tokyo for dessert in my private airplane you’d be a bit more skeptical, since that’s a more extraordinary claim. If I told you that I had lunch in Paris and then teleported to Tokyo you would immediately call me a liar, because that’s a very extraordinary claim. In both these cases you’d place a much heavier demand for evidence on me, based on the different claims.

Hopefully I explained it well! Sometimes I think I’m being clear and then it turns out people have no clue what I’m talking about (like today when I said someone was a misogynist, and people though I meant he was a masseuse–bit of a difference there!).

 

[Gaber]

And this why I think you are quite unfamiliar with Catholicism, despite your pleas to the contrary.

I am familiar with your stance, and despite your wishes, with doctrine , practice, and Catholicism as such for over some fitly years plus. and according to third party opinions, rather good at all that. Perhaps you just don’t like that someone who had nearly exactly your attitude changed for whatever reason?

What you proclaimed was, indeed, from doctrine.

I didn’t say it wasn’t. I said that I arrived at my understanding from observation and experience. Book learning is a bit different than experience, yes? Do, and then understand. not the other way around. That’s only a framework and meaningful if you discover its referent.

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”

Lovely. A bit presumptive in its implied premise, but useful up to a point.

That you don’t recognize that as doctrine is evidence to me of my position.

Again, whether it is doctrine or not, so what? How is it lived? What does it ultimately mean?

You are, sadly, NOT quite proficient in Catholicism as you think you are.

But then, despite your opinion about my level of book learning, happily, I’m proficient at what I am. And you are at what you are. That’s wonderful for you, and you will live it as long as you don’t see through it or discover better. We all do that.

It most likely was not your fault though, Gaber, so no need to feel badly. The Church, in the past, has done an abysmal job providing nourishing catechesis for her flock. :sad_yes:

Well, thank you for your condescending sentiment! I will go forward in my day feeling much better, lol! I’ll have to find a way, though, to explain how the heck my uneducated an sorry excuse for a Catholic self’s name got on that 3’ state trophy for catachetical and theological knowledge in our high school. I guess we were all just idiots by your standards back then. My apologies.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, thank you for your condescending sentiment! I will go forward in my day feeling much better, lol! I’ll have to find a way, though, to explain how the heck my uneducated an sorry excuse for a Catholic self’s name got on that 3’ state trophy for catachetical and theological knowledge in our high school. I guess we were all just idiots by your standards back then. My apologies.

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, Gaber. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think that believers use reason alone to argue for the existence of God.

The Angelic Doctor certainly did.

And here’s a modern day reason-alone apologia for the existence of God:

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

 

[PRmerger]

And as for the standards of evidence, they really aren’t all that different. All I am saying about the PAK is that he/she is likely to exist. I have no evidence to say definitively that this person does exist, I just think it’s probable.

I find the existence of God to be unlikely, and so I conclude that he probably doesn’t exist. It’s the same process. You are correct that I would require more evidence to be convinced of God than to be convinced of the PAK, but that’s because it’s a much more extraordinary claim and so requires extraordinary evidence. You do the same thing - for example, if I told you **I had a sandwich for lunch **you’d believe me just by my word. If I told you I had a sandwich for lunch in Paris and then jetted off to Tokyo for dessert in my private airplane you’d be a bit more skeptical, since that’s a more extraordinary claim. If I told you that I had lunch in Paris and then teleported to Tokyo you would immediately call me a liar, because that’s a very extraordinary claim. In both these cases you’d place a much heavier demand for evidence on me, based on the different claims.

I understand.

But if I spent 20+* posts defending my “I had a sandwich for lunch” dogma, the readers would have to wonder why you are so invested in making sure we all believe this.

*20 is my guess. I do not wish to go back and count your posts defending the existence of the PAK. The number is irrelevant, except that it’s a curiously high number.

 

[PRmerger]

I am familiar with your stance, and despite your wishes, with doctrine , practice, and Catholicism as such for over some fitly years plus. and according to third party opinions, rather good at all that. Perhaps you just don’t like that someone who had nearly exactly your attitude changed for whatever reason?

And yet you didn’t recognize a fundamental doctrine of our faith.

I didn’t say it wasn’t. I said that I arrived at my understanding from observation and experience.

Actually, yes you did. Right here (bold mine):

Call it what you will,** what I said was not from doctrine** but from observation and experience.

You made a comment about truth being independent of religious affiliation. I commented that this is a very Catholic concept. And you denied it being Catholic doctrine–only “catholic” in a generic sense.

Now, you can say that you made that comment based on your “experience”, and not based on your catechesis, but that only serves to affirm my point: you were not well catechized.

I have shown you that you were misinformed, that the truth you proclaimed is indeed part of Catholicism.

Just sayin’…

 

[PRmerger]

Lovely. A bit presumptive in its implied premise, but useful up to a point.

Was that your first time reading that passage from the Catechism?

Again, whether it is doctrine or not, so what? How is it lived? What does it ultimately mean?

It only serves to show that you were not familiar with that aspect of Catholicism. That’s all I was trying to do

But then, despite your opinion about my level of book learning, happily, I’m proficient at what I am.

Your lack of familiarity with this particular doctrine belies this.

 

[tonyrey]

Forgive me for interrupting but I wish to guide the thread gently back to the topic.

Several of the points I made remain unanswered:

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 more 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.

No one has said “Yes” to 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 (and would you tell them that’s what you think!) ?

 

[PRmerger]

1. Viruses are usually more harmful but even they perform **useful **functions

Indeed. And one of these useful functions is in gene therapy.

Viruses have greatly aided us in our ability to correct defective genes.

 

[Poseidon]

Indeed. And one of these useful functions is in gene therapy.

Viruses have greatly aided us in our ability to correct defective genes.

Which brings about the question of why God would create some people to have defective genes…

 

[PRmerger]

Which brings about the question of why God would create some people to have defective genes…

In the beginning, it was not so, Poseidon.

 

[Living_Stats]

In answer to your original question, Poseidon: while you may not believe in God, and while this article may not be written by someone who isn’t Catholic, it’s pretty much “nihil Obstat”

reasonablefaith.org/animal-suffering1

 

[Living_Stats]

^Btw the references to “the Fall” ,“Creation of Adam and Eve”, etc. are not to be taken literally, but they do have morals that should be taken into account.