Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?

[POI]

Below is a 20 minute video. For the ones who opt not to watch, I'll start with the following question? (Which may then lead to many others, as this is a fairly new concept of thought for me)....

Why does YHWH allow for so much animal suffering? Before you Christians answer, I trust you are already aware of this guy's counter points?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Suffering is good

Why is animal suffering good?

[POI]

I just realised that I hadn't watched this clip before. What really stood out for me was the cringe-worthy argument that Christianity's poster boy, William Lane Craig, used to justify animal pain. All he did was brush it under the carpet by essentially denying its existence. That from an alleged animal lover no less. It beggars belief and highlights the depths to which some believers will sink to support their God.

Yes. And what I also find odd, is that this poster-boy lays out his (2) arguments, in defense of "the problem of animal suffering", and most theists (reading along here) really do not want to touch these arguments (either way). Either they somewhat or completely agree with "Theophil" in post #245, or actually agree with "CosmicSkeptic", or maybe other...?

Seems to me, this thread topic is polarizing the cognitive dissonance required to retain belief in the Christian God. But in case anyone does feel like they have a solid rebuttal, here again are the arguments laid out by Dr. Craig, Can anyone justify them, or maybe come up with other justified reason(s)? (i.e.):

1) Animal predation is required
2) Animals do not really feel pain

Christians, I'll be waiting....

[theophile]

What's the debate here? How to reconcile God with animal suffering, or whether there are better descriptions of it all than the bible provides? You seem to be moving from the first to the latter, and bypassing any attempt to reconcile the two by basically washing the slate clean.

The fundamental debate is whether or not this argument presents as "Christianity's biggest problem"? Whether it does or doesn't, how can you defend against it....? Being that many do not answer, or have little answers, it might be.... For you, it may not? But this would be because your view is not in line with many other's view on Christianity.

I also follow what the interlocutor says. This is why you might see the conversation splinter off into other stuff.

I think it's symptomatic of the core (and probably biggest) problem of many of the more traditional and popular Christian theologies, and the tendency across these to posit an all-powerful but also loving God at the beginning of it all. But animal suffering is just one aspect. Suffering of innocents in general is an even bigger problem that circumscribes it.

It's like what Ivan Karamazov says in Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov (paraphrasing of course): if the world is built on the suffering of just one innocent, it'd be unacceptable.

I'm not against your view though of only adding God if necessary. Personally, I'm sure we could reconstruct the whole thing with non-theistic terms if we wanted to. But better to understand what the bible is actually saying before taking such action methinks.

What DOES the Bible actually say? I haven't been able to figure that one out. It does not matter whether or not I'm a believer. Many topics are endless debates.... (unresolved).... And since this is the case, maybe we cannot know, for certain, if this would be 'Christianity's biggest problem'?

However, <you> have a claimed position, as well as every other Christian. I guess this thread would be reserved for the ones which fit a specific position. And this position may not include yours....

I'll await any takers, which would be many, where this challenge may actually be a challenge. And I guess if you would like to start another thread, asking all Christians, "what is the right interpretation of it all"? You can have-at-it.... God luck though... Been there, done that...

Fin

Yah, nobody is ever going to win or finish that debate. We all think we're right and none of us are ever really that interested in compromising.


But if we keep things simple, and look at Genesis 1 as the purest expression of God's 'plan', wherein we clearly see God working to create the conditions for life and where a world filled with animal and other kinds of life is deemed 'good', I find it very hard to believe that animal suffering is somehow an intentional part of it...

Rather we should rethink some of the common assumptions we bring to the text, like an all-powerful God that is not explicit there and that has no explanation whatsoever (so far as I can tell) on how such a God came into being and acquired such power in the first place. Much better to go with the God actually described in Genesis 1, which is to say a wispy God of spirit and wind.

Hardly an image of omnipotent power, right?

[POI]

What's the debate here? How to reconcile God with animal suffering, or whether there are better descriptions of it all than the bible provides? You seem to be moving from the first to the latter, and bypassing any attempt to reconcile the two by basically washing the slate clean.

The fundamental debate is whether or not this argument presents as "Christianity's biggest problem"? Whether it does or doesn't, how can you defend against it....? Being that many do not answer, or have little answers, it might be.... For you, it may not? But this would be because your view is not in line with many other's view on Christianity.

I also follow what the interlocutor says. This is why you might see the conversation splinter off into other stuff.

I think it's symptomatic of the core (and probably biggest) problem of many of the more traditional and popular Christian theologies, and the tendency across these to posit an all-powerful but also loving God at the beginning of it all. But animal suffering is just one aspect. Suffering of innocents in general is an even bigger problem that circumscribes it.

It's like what Ivan Karamazov says in Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov (paraphrasing of course): if the world is built on the suffering of just one innocent, it'd be unacceptable.

I'm not against your view though of only adding God if necessary. Personally, I'm sure we could reconstruct the whole thing with non-theistic terms if we wanted to. But better to understand what the bible is actually saying before taking such action methinks.

What DOES the Bible actually say? I haven't been able to figure that one out. It does not matter whether or not I'm a believer. Many topics are endless debates.... (unresolved).... And since this is the case, maybe we cannot know, for certain, if this would be 'Christianity's biggest problem'?

However, <you> have a claimed position, as well as every other Christian. I guess this thread would be reserved for the ones which fit a specific position. And this position may not include yours....

I'll await any takers, which would be many, where this challenge may actually be a challenge. And I guess if you would like to start another thread, asking all Christians, "what is the right interpretation of it all"? You can have-at-it.... God luck though... Been there, done that...

Fin

Yah, nobody is ever going to win or finish that debate. We all think we're right and none of us are ever really that interested in compromising.


But if we keep things simple, and look at Genesis 1 as the purest expression of God's 'plan', wherein we clearly see God working to create the conditions for life and where a world filled with animal and other kinds of life is deemed 'good', I find it very hard to believe that animal suffering is somehow an intentional part of it...

Rather we should rethink some of the common assumptions we bring to the text, like an all-powerful God that is not explicit there and that has no explanation whatsoever (so far as I can tell) on how such a God came into being and acquired such power in the first place. Much better to go with the God actually described in Genesis 1, which is to say a wispy God of spirit and wind.

Hardly an image of omnipotent power, right?

Yea, so in a nutshell, this 'problem' may not really be a problem to answer for you at all; because it explains itself before ever having to ask the question. Your position is that the question is unwarranted, as it is based upon a false premise. Got it.

(Off topic).... Here is something I do not understand? How can genuine believers, of completely differing views, read the SAME collection of books, and use the SAME collection of books to justify their positions all equally? Seems like cherry-picking, re-translating, etc, would be required from all Christian positions? This is exactly why many become atheists. The book, as a whole, does not even support itself --- as compared to logic and perceived reality.

[theophile]

(Off topic).... Here is something I do not understand? How can genuine believers, of completely differing views, read the SAME collection of books, and use the SAME collection of books to justify their positions all equally? Seems like cherry-picking, re-translating, etc, would be required from all Christian positions? This is exactly why many become atheists. The book, as a whole, does not even support itself --- as compared to logic and perceived reality.

There's a lot of traditions out there, deep-set and brilliant, that a lot of Christian belief is based on. Then there's the brilliance of the bible itself (frankly), and how deep and rich biblical texts are whether you like the ideas you think they present or not. (Like any good literature, they aren't designed to spoon-feed you, and they deploy a lot of imagery, terminology, and devices that open up interpretation...)

So I think it's hard in such a vast and complex situation to not have this problem you point out.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Suffering is good

Why is animal suffering good?

in my skepticism I have no proof of any personal experience besides myself, that includes all animals. However, maybe it is good they suffer for the same reason why we suffer. Or maybe their soul doesnt exist?

[brunumb]

However, maybe it is good they suffer for the same reason why we suffer. Or maybe their soul doesnt exist?

Why would not having a soul make suffering good?
If suffering is good, why do we go to such great lengths to alleviate it?

[Shem Yoshi]

However, maybe it is good they suffer for the same reason why we suffer. Or maybe their soul doesnt exist?

Why would not having a soul make suffering good?
If suffering is good, why do we go to such great lengths to alleviate it?

well like i said, I can not validate any personal experience except my own. And I believe suffering is good.

But as far as someone going to great lengths to alleviate suffering. I dont think that is well defined. People actively pursue suffering all the time. Go run a marathon. Or fast for multiple days. Cosmicskeptic in the video said we eat to not suffer, but truly we eat to stay alive.

How do we even define what suffering is?

For lets take a drug addict will take drugs so they feel good, I suppose you can say they take drugs to not suffer, yet drug addiction causes suffering a lot of the time.

How is suffering even defined? lets start there.

[JoeyKnothead]

well like i said, I can not validate any personal experience except my own. And I believe suffering is good.

But as far as someone going to great lengths to alleviate suffering. I dont think that is well defined. People actively pursue suffering all the time. Go run a marathon. Or fast for multiple days. Cosmicskeptic in the video said we eat to not suffer, but truly we eat to stay alive.

How do we even define what suffering is?

For lets take a drug addict will take drugs so they feel good, I suppose you can say they take drugs to not suffer, yet drug addiction causes suffering a lot of the time.

How is suffering even defined? lets start there.

Dangitall, but I gotta fess to agreement here.

Would I be so proud of completing basic training if I didn't suffer me to do it? I see that suffering as integral to various aspects of who I am now, and of how I act.

Religious or otherwise, if only for me, some suffering can help build character. Up to and including an ability to lessen sufferings yet to come.

How could I ever come to put up with the pretty thing scheduling my day down to the nickel, if basic hadn't prepared me for it so long ago?

[POI]

However, maybe it is good they suffer for the same reason why we suffer. Or maybe their soul doesnt exist?

Why would not having a soul make suffering good?
If suffering is good, why do we go to such great lengths to alleviate it?

well like i said, I can not validate any personal experience except my own. And I believe suffering is good.

But as far as someone going to great lengths to alleviate suffering. I dont think that is well defined. People actively pursue suffering all the time. Go run a marathon. Or fast for multiple days. Cosmicskeptic in the video said we eat to not suffer, but truly we eat to stay alive.

How do we even define what suffering is?

For lets take a drug addict will take drugs so they feel good, I suppose you can say they take drugs to not suffer, yet drug addiction causes suffering a lot of the time.

How is suffering even defined? lets start there.

My question is about animals, not people. Apples and oranges.

1) Do animals suffer? Dr. Craig argues they don't, because they do not experience '3rd order pain'. Further, it's a yes/no question. You do not need to be an elk, to know if an elk 'suffers'. Do wild elk ever get chased, dehydrate, starve, etc etc etc? If so, for what 'greater' purpose?

2) Your position attempts to argue that we self-induce some (suffering) for "good". I would agree. And to an extent, so might animals, in building their homes, gathering food, etc... So here's the bigger question... Does an elk have the ability to reach theodicy? Or, more to the point, can an elk go to heaven? I'd argue many Christians would say no. Many Christians may argue an animal has no ability to distinguish "right" from "wrong". Thus, what would be the point in their 'suffering'? There would be no 'end goal', or something to achieve or prove.