Feathered T-Rex

[Bloomfield]

On the face of things, the creator of all this, if there is
one, did not care very much about the welfare of the animals he/she/it/ they created, nor was the creator particularly interested in sparing them pain, terror and death. That is certainly how it appears, anyhow. Generally in science we are entitled to suppose that things are likely to be as they appear. So it's reasonable to think it likely that the creator, if there was one, was not particularly interested in sparing animals pain, terror, and death. Of course we don't KNOW this, but, in the absence of a reason to think otherwise, it's more likely than not.

I don't know anything about philosophy (just here to learn by exposing my ignorance), but it seems that this could be put more simply:

If there is a creator that is the source of all that exists, and if there is suffering (as there appears to be), then the ultimate source of suffering must be that creator.

It's not clear to me that the personification of this creator in human terms is automatically justifiable. Of course, that is what is done in many religions, so I presume that this is the approach we're taking here.

The real question seems to be one of the coexistence of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. If we assume a creator who (1) can do literally anything--a creator who creates not just objects, but the causal relations among those objects, including, perhaps, the law of cause and effect, itself, and who, (2) having a perfect understanding, knows all the consequences of his decisions, then the question is why decisions should be made that entail suffering for elements of the creation, and how this can be made to jibe with the idea of benevolence in human terms.

Age-old questions. The traditional response is the concept of free choice. Suffering does not stem from the creation, but from the choice of the created beings. Why couldn't have God have created things so there wouldn't be suffering resulting from choice? Because then people would have just been automatons, little machines without free will, and not "in the image of God."

(Traditionally, suffering is not seen as incompatible with benevolence: He who loveth, chastiseth" was a favorite bible verse among 19th-century disciplinarians.)

Jim's argument about animal suffering (which is very Catholic btw), can be responded to in the following manner: Not all suffering is bad. If I want to get in shape, I have to exercise and discipline myself. A certain amount of suffering is necessary and a good thing, too. Response: You tell that to the birds who are pushed out of the nests and eaten. They don't prosper for their pain and suffering. Reply to that: In evolutionary terms it is not the individual who is the player but the species or genome. Perhaps the individual bird suffers & dies, but from the perspective of the species this is useful and beneficial suffering.

[Darwin]

On the face of things, the creator of all this, if there is
one, did not care very much about the welfare of the animals he/she/it/ they created, nor was the creator particularly interested in sparing them pain, terror and death. That is certainly how it appears, anyhow. Generally in science we are entitled to suppose that things are likely to be as they appear. So it's reasonable to think it likely that the creator, if there was one, was not particularly interested in sparing animals pain, terror, and death. Of course we don't KNOW this, but, in the absence of a reason to think otherwise, it's more likely than not.

I don't know anything about philosophy (just here to learn by exposing my ignorance), but it seems that this could be put more simply:

If there is a creator that is the source of all that exists, and if there is suffering (as there appears to be), then the ultimate source of suffering must be that creator.

It's not clear to me that the personification of this creator in human terms is automatically justifiable. Of course, that is what is done in many religions, so I presume that this is the approach we're taking here.

The real question seems to be one of the coexistence of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. If we assume a creator who (1) can do literally anything--a creator who creates not just objects, but the causal relations among those objects, including, perhaps, the law of cause and effect, itself, and who, (2) having a perfect understanding, knows all the consequences of his decisions, then the question is why decisions should be made that entail suffering for elements of the creation, and how this can be made to jibe with the idea of benevolence in human terms.

Age-old questions. The traditional response is the concept of free choice. Suffering does not stem from the creation, but from the choice of the created beings. Why couldn't have God have created things so there wouldn't be suffering resulting from choice? Because then people would have just been automatons, little machines without free will, and not "in the image of God."

"Free" choice is a meaningless concept to me. Actually, it's not a concept at all to me, as I cannot form a mental picture of what it might refer to. I'm afraid I'm trapped in a mental world of cause and effect.

(Traditionally, suffering is not seen as incompatible with benevolence: He who loveth, chastiseth" was a favorite bible verse among 19th-century disciplinarians.)

Jim's argument about animal suffering (which is very Catholic btw), can be responded to in the following manner: Not all suffering is bad. If I want to get in shape, I have to exercise and discipline myself. A certain amount of suffering is necessary and a good thing, too. Response: You tell that to the birds who are pushed out of the nests and eaten. They don't prosper for their pain and suffering. Reply to that: In evolutionary terms it is not the individual who is the player but the species or genome. Perhaps the individual bird suffers & dies, but from the perspective of the species this is useful and beneficial suffering.

The problem is why it needs to entail subjective suffering. Surely an entity that is clever enough to design everything that exists should be clever enough to work out ways around that. Even the benefit of pain as a warning mechanism seems rather primitive. When my car alarm goes off, I feel no pain at all. If a human engineer can make something work that way, surely the creator of the universe is no less capable?

[jim stone]

yep. I dunno.
(sorry, I run out of philosophical steam pretty easily!)

I just mean this--that if we try to determine what the creator is like
from what the creation is like, what we see of nature
doesn't support the idea that the creator is Pure Love, IMO.
There may be other reasons to believe that, however,
for instance religious experience or revelation.
I'm impressed, personally, with the awfulness
of nature. Not a fan.

[jim stone]

Of course the fact that there are some Contingent Beings rather than none at all may have no explanation. It may just be an accident that there is a material universe.

Aye.

But if there is an explanation, there is a Necessary Being, for
nothing else could explain it. And the fact that there is a material universe does seem to cry out for explanation, and so there is some reaon to believe in a Creator,...

The existence of a Creator doesn't really resolve the question of where everything comes from, so it isn't an explanation, either. All this particular argument does is to clothe the fact that there is no explanation in the fancy duds of a "necessary or self-existent" being. That's no explanation, that's just an avoidance of the issue that is made more palatable by naming it.

Humans are very prone to feeling that something has been explained once a name has been provided for it. I catch myself doing it all the time. But a true explanation involves learning the details and the causal connections among them. It seems obvious that "something ... which exists neither by chance nor by the agency of other things" is not something that we can learn the details of.

The existence of a Creator apart from all the contingent content of the universe doesn't provide any details about how the Creator managed to produce all that stuff, either.

In the end, appealing to the existence of such an entity is just a way of saying that there is no ultimate explanation--and of pinning a name on that fact. It is not an actual "explanation" by any meaningful definition of that word.

This is just an argument against the appeal of this idea as a solution to our craving for an ultimate explanation. It does not, in any way, disprove the existence of a such an entity as Creator. That's a whole different question.

Thanks for these intelligent comments.
I think the conclusion of the Cosmological Argument (that
a Self-Existent Being created Contingent Beings) doesn't
give us all the details, as you say. Of course we
can't expect all of that from from it! But I don't see why
an explanation that contains less than all the details
is of no value or why only complete explanations count
as advances of human knowledge. Why can there be
no truth to an incomplete explanation? There are
few things that we understand completely, but
that doesn't mean we've learned nothing. If the argument
makes it plausible that there is a non-Contingent
Creator, why should that be worthless? Because we
don't have all the details? Even if we couldn't have
all the details, it seems to me that much would
be worth knowing.

Why is it obvious that something that exists neither by
accident nor by the agency of other things is something
we can't learn more about?

Also if there is a Creator, might we not learn more
of the details of how he/she/it made the world
by studying the world on the hypothesis that
it was created/designed? Best

[Jack]

When you consider how long people have pondered these same questions, it makes people look rather stupid for still not having an adequate answer.

[Darwin]

I think the conclusion of the Cosmological Argument (that a Self-Existent Being created Contingent Beings) doesn't give us all the details, as you say. Of course we can't expect all of that from from it! But I don't see why an explanation that contains less than all the details is of no value or why only complete explanations count as advances of human knowledge.

But I don't see that it contains any details--at least, not in the basic hypothesis that there is a place where our search for origins can stop.

Why can there be no truth to an incomplete explanation? There are
few things that we understand completely, but that doesn't mean we've learned nothing.

I'd say that no truly complete explanations of phenomena have ever been advanced. There always seems to be another level of analysis.

If the argument makes it plausible that there is a non-Contingent Creator, why should that be worthless? Because we don't have all the details? Even if we couldn't have all the details, it seems to me that much would be worth knowing.

But the argument is contingent on our accepting that there is something that counts as a First Cause. It doesn't actually provide any reason for accepting that idea. It just says "maybe it could be like this". I don't find that particularly plausible.

Why is it obvious that something that exists neither by accident nor by the agency of other things is something we can't learn more about?

Right. My error. Thanks. It does, however, seem to imply a level of existence outside cause and effect, which is certainly beyond my poor comprehension. Is it likely that we could understand the internal workings (if any) of such an alien entity?

Also if there is a Creator, might we not learn more of the details of how he/she/it made the world by studying the world on the hypothesis that it was created?

Perhaps, but unless we know for sure that there was a Creator, it hardly seems worth the effort as a practical project.

There's a story, for which I haven't been able to find a source, in which Lavoisier, having explained his idea of the nature of chemical reactions to someone, was asked, "What part does God play in this?", and replied, "God is an unnecessary hypothesis."

Lacking compelling evidence to the contrary, that's my position about the universe as a whole, not just chemical reactions.

[emmline]

I'm impressed, personally, with the awfulness
of nature. Not a fan.

Yes. The horrifying is there. Maybe it's just a biologically programmed endorphin booster to notice the beautiful things too, but it seems a shame not to.

[izzarina]

The problem is why it needs to entail subjective suffering. Surely an entity that is clever enough to design everything that exists should be clever enough to work out ways around that.

I may be out of my league here, but that has never stopped me from opening my mouth and making a fool out of myself before, so why start now? :roll: Anyway, how can one try to understand the philosophical aspects of any religious beliefs without trying to understand the theological aspects as well? It seems to me that there is more to this issue than what is being thrown around here. In religion (thus in understanding God) philosophy and theology go hand in hand. It is impossible to understand one without the other. Which I would tend to think the whole concept of suffering is elusive here. What are all of your thoughts?

[Bloomfield]

Which I would tend to think the whole concept of suffering is elusive here. What are all of your thoughts?

I think you are absolutely right. Good point.

We have here a religously-loaded concept of suffering combined with scientific positivist empiricism. It's four people sitting at a table trying to play cards, only two of them are using bridge rules, the other poker rules.

[Darwin]

The problem is why it needs to entail subjective suffering. Surely an entity that is clever enough to design everything that exists should be clever enough to work out ways around that.

I may be out of my league here (nay, I am), but that has never stopped me from opening my mouth and making a fool out of myself before, so why start now? :roll:

So, why should you be any different from the rest of us, eh?

Anyway, how can one try to understand the philosophical aspects of any religious beliefs without trying to understand the theological aspects as well? It seems to me that there is more to this issue than what is being thrown around here. In religion (thus in understanding God) philosophy and theology go hand in hand. It is impossible to understand one without the other.

At the moment, I think we're discussing things at a pretty abstract level, and haven't really reached the point of religious discussion. To get to the point of theology, don't you have to have at least partial consensus on the nature of God(s)? It seems rather pointless for someone who doesn't even believe in the existence of God to argue about His nature.

Which I would tend to think the whole concept of suffering is elusive here. What are all of your thoughts?

I assume you're not saying that suffering doesn't occur, so I don't know what it is that you find elusive about the concept. Please continue.

[Bloomfield]

It seems rather pointless for someone who doesn't even believe in the existence of God to argue about His nature.

In the case of God, nature and existance are the same thing actually: If you are asking whether an omnipotent, omniscient creator being exists, you are not defining God except by reference to his nature.

[Walden]

yep. I dunno.
(sorry, I run out of philosophical steam pretty easily!)

I just mean this--that if we try to determine what the creator is like
from what the creation is like, what we see of nature
doesn't support the idea that the creator is Pure Love, IMO.
There may be other reasons to believe that, however,
for instance religious experience or revelation.
I'm impressed, personally, with the awfulness
of nature. Not a fan.

From my religious perspective, I would say that nature, in its fallen state, still reflects God and His goodness, but in a corrupted way, so that we also see death, destruction, greed, and other ungodly attributes. We see, as it were, "through a glass, darkly."

[Darwin]

It seems rather pointless for someone who doesn't even believe in the existence of God to argue about His nature.

In the case of God, nature and existance are the same thing actually: If you are asking whether an omnipotent, omniscient creator being exists, you are not defining God except by reference to his nature.

Hmm. Lacking sufficient lucidity... Please shine a brighter light.

I thought that Izzy was recommending that we undertake theology, and was commenting on why that doesn't seem like an option for me. At least, that was my intention.

[Bloomfield]

Izzy's point is that you can't have a philosophical discussion about the existence of God without having a religious one, or you're missing something. If you say "we're discussing whether God exists, but not his nature" I think you are attempting the impossible.

God = creator. Discussion of existance of creator = discussion of existance of God. Discussion of existance of God = discussion of God's naure (since God = creator, i.e. nature of God is to exist [first]). Discussion of existance/nature of God = religious discussion. Ergo discussion of existance of creator = religious discussion. (And ergo, Izzy is right.)

I am confident that I've now obscured whatever light there may have been.

[Darwin]

Izzy's point is that you can't have a philosophical discussion about the existence of God without having a religious one, or you're missing something. If you say "we're discussing whether God exists, but not his nature" I think you are attempting the impossible.

God = creator. Discussion of existance of creator = discussion of existance of God. Discussion of existance of God = discussion of God's naure (since God = creator, i.e. nature of God is to exist [first]). Discussion of existance/nature of God = religious discussion. Ergo discussion of existance of creator = religious discussion. (And ergo, Izzy is right.)

I am confident that I've now obscured whatever light there may have been.

At first, it seemed to me that your position was that a person who does not believe that the universe has a beginning, and thus does not believe that it has a creator, cannot discuss that non-belief.

Now I'm wondering if you're simply saying that the discussion of that non-belief is already a theological discussion? If so, that's fine, but it certainly lacks the degree of detail that I would normally expect from a theological discussion. On the other hand, I would characterize Jim's discussion of God's benevolence as theological, since it is set up by specifying the existence of God. If there is no God, then there can be no details about God, which makes the theological possibilities rather sparse.