Feathered T-Rex

Poststructural Pub
61

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.

62

“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?

63

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.

64

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

65

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

66

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.

67

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.

68

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?

69

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.

70

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.

71

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.

72

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.”

73

Hmm. Lacking sufficient lucidity… :confused: 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.

74

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. :slight_smile:

75

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.

76

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.
.[/quote]

No, the version of the Cosmological Argument I gave does attempt to provide some support for the hypothesis of a creator. It doesn’t just
say ‘maybe it could be that way.’ nor is it contingent on our accepting
that there is a creator. Its basic form is this: 'Here’s something that needs explaining; here’s the only possible explanation hence the
best explanation. Generally the fact that an explanation provides
the best explanation for a phenomenon that needs explaining
is a good reason to believe that it may well be true. Therefore
we have have a good reason to accept THIS explanation.
If so we have
a reason to study the world on the hypothesis that it was
created. Generally we don’t have to be sure of hypotheses
before we study things on the supposition that they are true;
if there is a good reason to believe them, that’s enough.

Also why is the Creator beyond cause and effect? Might it not
cause events in the world and be affected by them and work
‘internally’ by causation? That it’s existence isn’t an effect
of anything else doesn’t seem to preclude this. Best

77

But we are given no reason to believe that there actually is an explanation.

In fact, there is no reason to believe that anything in the universe is “contingent” in any ultimate sense. In an eternal universe of unescapable cause and effect, each stage is a necessary result of what went before.

I think that the need for a beginning is a psychological fact about humans. To me, a Creator just looks like a personification of the eternal aspect of the universe that somehow makes it more palatable. We don’t mind a mystery if it has a somewhat human face.

Generally the fact that an explanation provides the best explanation for a phenomenon that needs explaining is a good reason to believe that it may well be true. Therefore we have have a good reason to accept THIS explanation. If so we have a reason to study the world on the hypothesis that it was created. Generally we don’t have to be sure of hypotheses before we study things on the supposition that they are true; if there is a good reason to believe them, that’s enough.

Again, I see no good reason to believe that the universe was created. Creation explains no fact about the universe that is not explained equally well by eternal existence–less, in a way, because you now have to explain all about the Creator–motivation, intentions, etc.

Also why is the Creator beyond cause and effect? Might it not cause events in the world and be affected by them and work ‘internally’ by causation? That it’s existence isn’t an effect of anything else doesn’t seem to preclude this.

I suppose so. So, what do we have so far?

  1. The Creator exists neither by accident nor by the agency of other things.

  2. The Creator has created something new–the universe. (Out of nothing, or out of its own pre-existing parts? How? And why?)

  3. The Creator may or may not be subject to external and/or internal causation. (Would internal causation imply that the Creator is made up of interacting parts?)

Barring revelation, where do we look for the answers to the questions in 2 and 3? (Since I still see no reason to accept the idea that the universe was created, this begins to feel a bit like one of those alternate history discussions about how WW2 might have gone if J. Edgar Hoover had paid attention to warnings about a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.)

78

It’s the age old question, “Why would a benevolent and loving God bestow such lovely, lovely, plumage on a T-rex, and then throw a big old rock in the Gulf of Mexico, to wipe him out?”

79

…I’m thinking it may have been a ‘durability test’ that went a touch astray… :smiley:

80

In my humble opinion, the fields of psychology, philosophy, and religion are the same thing with different concentrations by different people in different areas. At the very least, they overlap a lot and are extremely interconnected.

Of course, you’ll find psychologists who say they are anti-religion and religious figures who are anti-psychology, but they’re not really. Same with philosophy. Even atheists have their own set of values, ways of seeing the world, and ways of relating and functioning, so they have their own religions in non-religion. Religion (or apparent lack of religion) makes humans human. Animals have language. Animals have culture, and animals can learn. No animals have religion.