The “naturalist” Problem of Suffering

[Subduction Zone]

From the point of view of darwinism it is better to have 10 kids and live in extreme poverty, than to have 2 healthy and happy kids,

Again this shows that Darwinism is wrong not that you and your family are wrong

LOL! Still the master of the strawman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hang on a minute...you're available to housesit? Will you walk the dog?

No, I will do it only for my children and closest relatives. I am against keeping pets in the house for reasons of cleanliness (I am a brahmin). I am against keeping them captive and dance to our tunes. I would not walk your dog and pick up the poo (we do not have to do that it India, nature takes care of it).

 

[Sheldon]

What's the most mysterious is there are people saying pain and suffering isn't real and it's just chemicals and electricity.

For something not real, the intensity and unbearability is impossible to ignore when it occurs.

Pain can be a difficult concept though, since it is of course a subjective experience, as we are all born with varying pain thresholds. Sometimes babies are born with a pain threshold so high they effectively feel no pain, they tend not to live very long, though it does happen. Read a story recently about a 60+ year old women who'd been walking around limping on a compound fracture of her ankle, and didn't know. Turns out she can't feel any pain.

We can work on our pain tolerance level of course, if like me you're unlucky enough to suffer chronic pain, it's often all you can do. Luckily it's not often unbearable, every cloud and all that...

 

[leroy]

It appears that you are a slow learner. Most of us when we have our fingers burned learn how to avoid that in the future. A learned response can be superior to a reactive response because one lowers the chance of injury.

Are you trying not to understand on purpose again?

Nobody is disputing that,

The claim is that under darwinism (random mutations + natural selection) can´t account for conscious suffering (and all the benefits that come with it)

Start with 2 colonies of fish

1 they react and scape when a larger fish bites them (but have no conscious suffering)

2 they react and scape when a larger fish bites them , and they would also experience conscious suffering, why would natural selection select “2” over 1?

 

[BrightShadow]

With this line of thinking - a better question (IMO) would be -
Why natural selection created Human who is destroying the environment? Obviously that was counter productive as far as rest of the species are concerned!
Why make some ape so smart that they started imaging and anticipating more than their counter parts and as a result started suffering more?
So, is natural selection a game where you "win some and lose some"?

On a serious note - I don't think Atheists have any problem explaining "suffering" and living with "suffering".
Suffering is explainable via natural selection. IMO. Yes! it is explainable to a certain degree. But why only one intelligent species (humans) came into the equation is a mystery!
That is why I think both theists and naturalist can be half right! God could have put Adam at a point in time when some Apes were just about to get clever!

Anyhow, I believe - Atheists have a bigger problem. They are not obtaining a passport to get into God's immediate kingdom because they have a "lack of belief" that such a place exists!

If someone wants to know why God created a world with sufferings - then I would answer with a few questions... Why do we create jails? Why do we separate criminals from the society and incarcerate them? Why do we put them in a condition where they are not entirely comfortable? Why do we put them with other dangerous criminals where they could suffer?

You got the gist?

We are sent here in our physical body and not in our soul form. Assuming the descriptions in some of the religions are true and assuming there is a God and we have a soul - what reason does a creator have to send us in a physical body and not in our soul form?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody is disputing that,

The claim is that under darwinism (random mutations + natural selection) can´t account for conscious suffering (and all the benefits that come with it)

Start with 2 colonies of fish

1 they react and scape when a larger fish bites them (but have no conscious suffering)

2 they react and scape when a larger fish bites them , and they would also experience conscious suffering, why would natural selection select “2” over 1?

If you want to learn about evolution and stop using laughably ignorant strawman arguments you need to start off on the right foot. You know what the proper term is. Darwin was a genius, but he had limited information so there are details that he got wrong. No one, except for rather uneducated people, tend to use the term "Darwinism" today.

If you want to be wrong that is your choice.

 

[leroy]

How would the dog be aware of the injury without pain though? .

The dog would “feel something” but not actual conscious pain, pretty much like when you touch something hot and remove your hand, … you don’t really feel pain, you just “feel something” that made you move your hand.

This are not rare random guesses, Dogs and humans are rare excpetions, most organism deal with danger without feeling conscious pain, a plant would produce a poisonous substance if you try to “injure” it but the tree doesn’t really feel pain

 

[Subduction Zone]

On a serious note - I don't think Atheists have any problem explaining "suffering" and living with "suffering".
Suffering is explainable via natural selection. IMO. Yes! it is explainable to a certain degree. But why only one intelligent species (humans) came into the equation is a mystery!
That is why I think both theists and naturalist can be half right! God could have put Adam at a point in time when some Apes were just about to get clever!

Anyhow, I believe - Atheists have a bigger problem. They are not obtaining a passport to get into God's immediate kingdom because they have a "lack of belief" that such a place exists!

If someone wants to know why God created a world with sufferings - then I would answer with a few questions... Why do we create jails? Why do we separate criminals from the society and incarcerate them? Why do we put them in a condition where they are not entirely comfortable? Why do we put them with other dangerous criminals where they could suffer?

You got the gist?

We are sent here in our physical body and not in our soul form. Assuming the descriptions in some of the religions are true and assuming there is a God and we have a soul - what reason does a creator have to send us in a physical body and not in our soul form?

What makes you think that only humans suffer. Maybe you are lucky and all of your cats were run over by semis, but most people know that if they keep pets for the pet's lifetime that it will often suffer as it gets very old.

And suffering has nothing to do with "sinning" or breaking any laws so your jails question is rather pointless.

 

[leroy]

If you want to learn about evolution and stop using laughably ignorant strawman arguments you need to start off on the right foot. You know what the proper term is. Darwin was a genius, but he had limited information so there are details that he got wrong. No one, except for rather uneducated people, tend to use the term "Darwinism" today.

If you want to be wrong that is your choice.

Ok I will simply add this to the list of questions that you refuse to answer

 

[BrightShadow]

What makes you think that only humans suffer. Maybe you are lucky and all of your cats were run over by semis, but most people know that if they keep pets for the pet's lifetime that it will often suffer as it gets very old.

And suffering has nothing to do with "sinning" or breaking any laws so your jails question is rather pointless.

Of course if you think you were born sinless then nothing will make sense.
I don't believe anybody is born sinless. I am not talking about Adam and Eve eating fruit!
I believe we all did something and that is why we are sent in our physical form and not in our soul form.
By the way, I believe animal suffering is all part of the package. Our car suffers when it hits a pothole. One day when car can talk it will say "ouch"! We still make cars and we will repair and drive. God can repair animals too! IMO... No permanent damage!

 

[HonestJoe]

The dog would “feel something” but not actual conscious pain, pretty much like when you touch something hot and remove your hand, … you don’t really feel pain, you just “feel something” that made you move your hand.

That is still pain. Pain itself isn't conscious and we certainly have instinctive reactions to it but we are also consciously aware of the pain and so can also take conscious actions in relation to it too.

If I touch the unexpectedly hot pan, I will indeed instinctively pull my hand back, but I'll generally understand why I did that and so can also consciously work out why the pan is hot when it shouldn't be (maybe I left the burner on by mistake, maybe it's one of those stupid pans with heat-conductive handles, maybe the kitchen is on fire but I couldn't smell the smoke because of COVID ) and choose to do something about it.

This are not rare random guesses, Dogs and humans are rare exceptions, most organism deal with danger without feeling conscious pain, a plant would produce a poisonous substance if you try to “injure” it but the tree doesn’t really feel pain

I agree, but those "rare" exceptions include most mammals, birds and reptiles. And the fact remains that the "reason" for a lot of suffering is as a consequence of those pain reactions, which is an answer to the problem raised in the OP.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the argument is
1 Complex + Useless mechanism are not expected to evolve
2 suffering (as oppose to reacting) is a complex and useless mechanism
3 therefore suffering is not expected to evolve./ therefore atheist have the same problem than theists

Suffering, which is not a mechanism, is not always useless (the mechanism is the nervous system and its nociceptors, for example). People unable to feel pain die younger. Whatever promotes reproduction is selected for, and this includes surviving to reproductive age. Organisms that suffer pain to let them know that the surface they are walking on will cause serious tissue damage will out-survive and out-reproduce those that cannot.

Your argument has been refuted, by which I mean that I have come to a conclusion that makes yours wrong if mine is correct (vice versa - if you are correct, I cannot be). If you think that my counter-argument is flawed, please advise where and how. What specific statement do you say is incorrect? If none, then can we agree that this mater has been resolved? Please address this paragraph. Am I correct? Have I convinced you that you were wrong? If not, which part, and why. Thank you in advance.

Incidentally, it's been discovered that morning sickness in early pregnancy is a protective evolutionary adaptation, another example of beneficial (not useless) suffering : Morning sickness is pregnancy 'wellness insurance,' says Cornell professor | Cornell Chronicle Doesn't this alone refute your argument?

Atheists / naturalists have the same problem, they can’t explain suffering ether, so I guess suffering is simply a strange thing that nobody cant explain.

That's incorrect. I just explained how some suffering is selected for by nature.

Atheism solves a whole host of problems for Abrahamic theists, like this one - why there is gratuitous suffering, the kind that doesn't benefit life? The answer is easy and obvious. We have the ability to suffer because it promotes survival in a variety of settings, but because nature is blind, sometimes she throws us a curve, something goes wrong, and it hurts. The believer is scratching his head looking for answers to problems that aren't problems outside of religion. He's trying to explain why his creation story doesn't resemble the science, or why there are contradictions in his scripture, and he has to do some unconvincing verbal gymnastics, whereas for the atheist, the answers are easy. The creation myth and the contradicting scriptures were written by fallible men, not a deity.

This is actually valuable evidence that the Abrahamic theist is incorrect. One can guess that evolution didn't occur (it did), but if he does, because he guessed wrong, he will be confronted with conflicting evidence forever. Had he guessed the other way, he would never deal with any contradictory evidence. This should be meaningful. And this describes the plight of the theists well. All of these theistic problems disappear by going from belief to unbelief.

Think about a friend who is a liar, but you don't know that yet. You assume he's honest. Then all sorts of irregularities arise, followed by a hundred just-so explanations, each of which might be truthful, but all together, it's becoming harder to accept all of these answers. Eventually, you realize that you were wrong, and suddenly, all the mysteries disappear.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The “atheist” Problem of Suffering

The problem of suffering is perhaps the most sound and difficult argument against the existence of God, after all why would God allow for suffering? Theist have proposed many answers, but such answers usually have a high price to pay, and quite honestly I(as a theist) haven’t seen a “good solution” for this problem

However Atheists / naturalists have the same problem, they can’t explain suffering ether, so I guess suffering is simply a strange thing that nobody cant explain.

Why Atheists cant explain Suffering

Well suffering is a complex and useless mechanism so why would it evolve by natural selection? It is true that NS is not the only naturalistic option but none of the alternatives that I am aware of seems to solve the problem.

Reacting Vs Suffering ​

For the purpose of this argument, do not confuse “reacting” and “suffering”Almost all organism react to avoid harmful situations, for example sometimes plants produce a poisonous substance when someone is trying to pull down a tree, clams would hide underground, spiders would bite you, etc, this is a very useful mechanism because it helps organisms to survive and reproduce.

However there is a big difference between “reacting” (like most organisms do ) and real and actual suffering (where only complex organisms do) a plant doesn’t really suffer, it doesn’t really feel pain it simply reacts………….too suffer is a complex mental state that doesn’t offer any selective advantage.

So the argument is

1 Complex + Useless mechanism are not expected to evolve

2 suffering (as oppose to reacting) is a complex and useless mechanism

3 therefore suffering is not expected to evolve./ therefore atheist have the same problem than theists


Sure as a naturalist you can appeal to many excuses, perhaps there is “something” that we don’t know yet about, that would explain suffering, but theist can use the same excuse, “maybe” there is a good explanation for why we have suffering.

Hoo boy. I have too little patience today to go through all the wrong-headed thinking here point by point.

 

[leroy]

Actually this the sub-issue within a much bigger problem.

Why would evolutionary mechanism lead to development of beings that have first person experiential awareness fields? What does having inner subjective experiences add to the processing of external stimuli through the usual neuro-chemical pathways of the brain and the nervous system?

Agree that is a big issue

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The dog would “feel something” but not actual conscious pain, pretty much like when you touch something hot and remove your hand, … you don’t really feel pain, you just “feel something” that made you move your hand.

This are not rare random guesses, Dogs and humans are rare excpetions, most organism deal with danger without feeling conscious pain, a plant would produce a poisonous substance if you try to “injure” it but the tree doesn’t really feel pain

How Dogs Feel Pain and 30 Signs of Pain in Dogs - PetHelpful

There is some troubling information that sometimes lingers around forums or misinformed people. One of the most troubling is the belief that dogs, or certain breeds of dogs, do not feel pain like humans do. This belief may stem from the innate tendency for animals to hide pain from view.

From an evolutionary standpoint, manifesting pain may potentially cause an animal to appear weak and vulnerable which is potentially dangerous in the wild where predators are just waiting for a weakened animal to attack it and feast. It therefore may be instinctive to hide pain and not manifest it as we would expect, but it's terribly wrong to assume that dogs don't feel pain.

This whole thread confuses the hell out of me.

 

[leroy]

Suffering, which is not a mechanism, is not always useless (the mechanism is the nervous system and its nociceptors, for example). People unable to feel pain die younger. Whatever promotes reproduction is selected for, and this includes surviving to reproductive age. Organisms that suffer pain to let them know that the surface they are walking on will cause serious tissue damage will out-survive and out-reproduce those that cannot.

.

You dont seem to understand the issue.

I am making a distinction between conscious pain and uncurious pain (simple reacting)………. The point that I made is that uncurious pain is enough to get all the selective benefits that you mentioned,

For example a tree would produce corrosive chemicals is someone is trying to “harm it” trees already have this ability….. trees don’t feel conscious pain, they simply react such that such chemicals are liberated to avoid “harm”, if trees evolve an extra layer of complexity and develop the ability of feeling conscious pain that wouldn’t represent an extra advantage to the tree………the tree would be equally likely to survive and reproduce with or without the conscious pain. So why would this extra layer of complexity evovle and be selected by natural selection if it doesnt add any advantage?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok I will simply add this to the list of questions that you refuse to answer

That is right, I will not answer foolish or poorly framed questions. Don't blame others all of the time. There is a reason that you are usually on "corrections only" mode.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course if you think you were born sinless then nothing will make sense.
I don't believe anybody is born sinless. I am not talking about Adam and Eve eating fruit!
I believe we all did something and that is why we are sent in our physical form and not in our soul form.
By the way, I believe animal suffering is all part of the package. Our car suffers when it hits a pothole. One day when car can talk it will say "ouch"! We still make cars and we will repair and drive. God can repair animals too! IMO... No permanent damage!

It is a good thing that you are not talking about mythical events that never happened. I was born sinless. In fact I may have never sinned. Now it appears that you are trying to claim that your God is immoral again by giving us pains without telling us why.

 

[leroy]

That is right, I will not answer foolish or poorly framed questions. Don't blame others all of the time. There is a reason that you are usually on "corrections only" mode.

that is not true

For years I´ve been asking you to quote a single factual mistake made by me, and you have been unable to accomplish that task………… so you are not in “correction mode” you are in “I will claim that you are wrong without justification “ mode

 

[idea]

No, that is pain. Pain goes away when you remove the source of the pain. Suffering occurs when either extreme damage is done or as we get older our systems can break down causing pain that does not end, or suffering. A pain that does not end is not a survival mechanism.

Nature happens in cycles. Spring, winter, birth, death. When it is time to slow down and become more careful in everything, nature slows us down. Survival happens through new life replacing the older models, just how it works.