Part 1 of 10: The Problem of Suffering: the 7 Supernatural Answers vs. the 1 Naturalistic

[nefandix]

By other way, suffering (stress) in biology is necessary to maintain de immune streght, resistance, adaptability, etc. Lack or excess of stress provokes a faster death.

[ToddAllenGates]

@nefandix

> By other way, suffering (stress) in biology is necessary to maintain de immune streght, resistance, adaptability, etc.

I think both theists and atheists would agree with this, albeit for different reasons.

THEISTS: God makes us suffer b/c that's part of His Optimal Design.

NON-THEISTS: pain has a survival advantage, in that those who can feel no pain are unlikely to survive long enough to pass on their genes.

[nefandix]

I would put an extra explanation: suffering by our own desires or psychological suffering. It could be by the other hand, a type of suffering in the 1/3 category.

[billredeemed]

After just the first video i can tell you this; in a world with no Creator the answer is your answer that reality is indifferent. However i still contend that a person has to decide which reality they will believe is true, the one without God or the one with God. If the one with God, then which God? Then all the other answers will flow from there. I personally felt like i was watching and athesist proselytizer:)

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 3:

> in a world with no Creator the answer is your answer that reality is indifferent.

Yes, agreed.

> a person has to decide which reality they will believe is true, the one without God or the one with God.

Yes, but I think it's not a matter of what one prefers, but whether the evidence for a "creator" is good enough to be convincing.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

> If with God, then which God?

My video series "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers" discusses that. It operates from the premise that there IS a god, & that one religion came from this god, & the rest were just made up by people. And from there, one needs to determine what qualities make for a "man made" religion. And my question is "Do all religions *except one* meet the criteria for a man-made religion? Or do they ALL fall into that same category?"

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

> I personally felt like I was watching an atheist proselytizer:)

For most of my videos, I take something of a Deist perspective—my skepticism is not on "a Creator," but on what people say they *know* about this Creator.

But for this video series and its attempt to make sense out of suffering, I suppose it's a bit atheist-leaning (although it's still compatible with a "remote Creator": one who kick-started the Big Bang and life on earth but then wandered off).

[billredeemed]

Look at what you just said in that last sentence; that "it's not a matter of preferece", but a certain standard of production of evidence you call "good enough". Who sets that standard? YOU. How do you set it? It's your PREFERENCE.

[ToddAllenGates]

> You could look at it that way—I won't argue over semantics.

But let's say I'm trying to decide whether it's healthier for me to eat vegetables or chocolate cake. The way I see it, I'll conclude that the evidence is "good enough" for me to choose the vegetables, regardless of my *preference* for the cake.

[billredeemed]

First let me say i am sorry that i missed parts 2 and 3 of your earlier comments, i will use the excuse that i was in a hurry when i responded, but it was probably that and pure carelessness. So per your last comment i say good because i have also learned there is not future in arguing semantics, (lets remove the word preference). However, i still contend that a person has to decide whether or not to believe what the people tell them about the cake and the vegetables.

[billredeemed]

per 2 of 3 above, i will watch your video first. As for 3 of 3 above, i personally, find the implications of the Deist perspective worse than no God at all, sorry.

[ToddAllenGates]

>I find the implications of the Deist perspective worse than no God at all

Yes, it seems a Creator that took the time to make us would want some hands-on interaction! A Deist god is like a dead-beat dad—or some reptile that lays its eggs and then wanders off, never bothering to even check if the offspring hatch.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 4:

> However, i still contend that a person has to decide whether or not to believe what the people tell them about the cake and the vegetables

True. But what should guide that decision? Because if the question of "which is healthier?" were just about personal preference (i.e., "what makes me the happiest") I would choose the cake!

And when it comes to a question such as "Is there an afterlife?"—I would definitely *prefer* the answer to be YES!

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 4:

Yet I think we both agree that the appropriate answer to "which should I believe?" is simply "I'll believe the one that's true."

This of course leads to the tricky issue of how to determine whether something is true or not . . . and the best guideline for determining a candidate for truth, as far as I know, is that things that are "true" should (1) be able to explain a wide set of observations, and (2) make predications that agree with observations.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 4:

So when it comes to explaining and predicting accurate observations of the relationship between health and food, I believe the evidence will lead toward the fiber and vitamins of vegetables, rather than the fat & sugar of cake.

(Just like when it comes to determining the "true" cause of the sun's apparent movement, a *wide* set of observations points to the conclusion that it's the earth's rotation on its axis, not an orbiting sun.)

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 4:

So—which worldview best explains a wide set of observations and can make predictions that agree with observations? Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, Zoroastrianism (etc.)? Deism? Atheism? Well, the sparks still fly here!

[helpmetony]

keep seeking the answer! you're going to be ok!

[natewheatshelf]

This is a comment.

[WashingMachine0]

This is a reply

[Zaimoren]

This is my response to your reply to his comment.

[WashingMachine0]

This is my response to your reply to my reply to.....fuck it. lol

[aljaesson]

this is a random spam comment i am posting because I am bored and not really watching the video and feel like posting something

[teebone37]

holy crap you need more subs.

great work- subscribed

[ToddAllenGates]

> holy crap you need more subs. great work- subscribed

Thanks!!

[RabidAp3]

comment

[uthamal]

I finally came around to listening to this series you made and I think it's the best one to date!

[ToddAllenGates]

> I finally came around to listening to this series you made and I think it's the best one to date!

Thanks!

[julzabro]

And here it is....YAY!

[ToddGates]

> And here it is....YAY!

Haha thank you for the enthusiasm! By the way, thanks again for recommending "God on Trial." I bring it up in Video 8 of 10 of this series (and in the annotation at the 4 minute 9 second spot, I credit you for the recommendation).

[lauragabriel]

Those five explanations are not exhaustive. There is also the contrast theodicy (evil must exist in order to appreciate good), the ontological theodicy (evil must exist in order for God to be different from His creation) and the abscence theodicy (evil does not exist as such; it is just an abscence of good).

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 5:

> There is also the contrast theodicy (evil must exist in order to appreciate good), the ontological theodicy (evil must exist in order for God to be different from His creation) and the abscence theodicy (evil does not exist as such; it is just an abscence of good).

First, note that this series does not discuss the explanations for "evil," but only "suffering."

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 5:

I don't use the word "evil" because it's just too subjective . . . does a terrified gazelle being torn apart by a pack of hyenas count as "evil"? What about the yelp of pain from a 15-year-old dog whose legs are crippled with arthritis? These situations don't count as "evil," but they *do* count as suffering---and likewise, of course, suffering is experienced by victims of war & slavery & genocide and so on.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 5:

So IF our world was designed by some purposeful Higher Power, I think a question we can't help asking is "Why did this Higher Power include the likes of predators & earthquakes & genocide & arthritis?"

So as for the three theories you mentioned:

Contrast theodicy: I believe I sufficiently cover this in Part 4 (that "suffering benefits us"). (See the Description Box to the right of the screen for an overview of this series.)

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 5:

Ontological theodicy (evil must exist in order for God to be different from His creation): Okay, I don't discuss this one, but does *anyone* ever use it? Does anyone think that God had to arrange for some babies to die painful deaths from bulging skulls because of too much fluid in the brain---just so He'd be different? If a God exists, there would already be an *overwhelming* amount of differences. No need to create birth defects & earthquakes to achieve that simple goal.

[ToddAllenGates]

5 of 5:

Absence theodicy: this goes back to the subjective definition of "evil"---and maybe people *could* deny "evil," but I don't think anyone could deny suffering: unless all those in burn wards (to use just one of countless examples) only *look* like they're suffering.

[hugesinker]

One more post just to clarify my point. I will argue that nature is not indifferent to suffering. Life tends to adapt to relieve suffering and when it cannot, life is shortened and death is ultimately a perpetual relief.

A grit of sand bothers a clam, but a pearl forms to relieve it. A person who endures constant abuse may escape into a world of fantasy to relieve it. Sure, you can change your frame of reference and call it mostly suffering, but their own frame is ultimately the true measure.

[ToddGates]

1 of 2:

> I will argue that nature is not indifferent to suffering. Life tends to adapt to relieve suffering . . .

At the risk of repeating one of my previous responses, I agree that it's part of the natural world for individuals to minimize their own suffering---but that's quite different from saying there's some overarching supernatural force in the sky (or "spiritual world") that wants to either protect us from pain or is purposefully doing it out.

[ToddGates]

2 of 2:

This video series is about pointing out the incoherencies of the supernatural explanations, not the natural. So because my *guess* is that you're not a theist, I don't believe there's any disagreement between us, other than subtle semantics.

[zebruh]

awesome. i'm eager to watch parts 2 and 3

[hugesinker]

Fair categorization, I love it. Plus, you decided to go all multimedia on our ass--what with the music and the slides..

I generally prefer the explanations of scholars such as Leibniz, and his notion of a "best possible universe."-- You may call this a "God is not all powerful" explanation... but at the same time it is easy to see how a universe where 'everyone will be happy all the time' collapses on itself.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 3:

> I love it.

Thanks!

> Plus, you decided to go all multimedia on our ass--what with the music and the slides.

Hope you like it! (Because it takes a lot longer to get them done this way!)

> it is easy to see how a universe where 'everyone will be happy all the time' collapses on itself.

I think that kind of philosophy makes sense of a *limited* set of observations: certainly walking through bitter cold sub-zero weather can make you REALLY appreciate a warm fire.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

But can this philosophy be coherently applied to a wide set of observations? How does this apply to suffering in the wildlife--to the fawn devoured by wolves or burned alive in a forest fire? (To make fellow deer feel grateful it's not them?) Can it make sense out of the macabre mothering of the wasp that lays its eggs within caterpillars so that the larva can slowly eat the caterpillar alive?

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

And if there's a Creator out there who created suffering because life would be too boring if life were too pleasant, and *that's* why mosquito saliva kills millions via malaria, and why so many people have starved to death, and why children are sometimes raped & murdered, well . . . I think such a Creator went a bit overboard with the rainy day scenarios.

[hugesinker]

Weighing the amount of suffering versus the amount of joy seems like a fruitless line of reasoning to me. It goes back to pessimism versus optimism to some extent. I think statistics will back me up on this, but the vast majority of people feel that their lives are pretty good most of the time, but worry about their fellow man.-- which, in itself, is noble and some cause for optimism.

[hugesinker]

I believe it can.. because when you try to imagine a coherent 'better world' where living things do not have to eat each other, externalities become overwhelming-- do they need energy to sustain themselves anymore? Do they have a reason to evolve beyond single cell organisms or mindless jellyfish anymore? Are their resources renewable? Do you really want to say that fire is a bad thing? What are the implications of the alternatives?

[hugesinker]

As far as "Couldn't it be a little warmer outside?"...well, some things evolved to thrive in colder climates, therefore increasing biological diversity which contributes to the complex awe of our planet. It also causes diversity in the manner in which people live. I, for one, would laugh at an Eskimo complaining that it's too cold outside.

If a Creator is to take a hands off approach to the wold by leaving things possible. I don't think it's quite fair to complain when roses have thorns.

[ToddGates]

1 of 5:

> I don't think it's quite fair to complain when roses have thorns.

"Complaining" would be relevant only if I thought the universe was created by a Purposeful Deity (one that I would be criticizing for not doing a better job). But given that I have no current belief in any sort of Deity (but I'm always willing to change my mind, should I ever encounter persuasive evidence), I wouldn't "complain" about the outcomes of evolution any more than I would complain about gravity.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 5:

> I will argue that nature is not indifferent to suffering. Life tends to adapt to relieve suffering and when it cannot, life is shortened and death is ultimately a perpetual relief.

My feeling is that there's no real disagreement between us, other than what's caused by subtle nuances in language. Individual life forms certainly seek to minimize pain, so yes, "nature" is not indifferent to suffering--

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 5:

--but when I say "the natural world is indifferent to creature suffering," I was only referring to there being no reason to believe that there's a Higher Power who's purposefully doling out measured doses of suffering for any "higher purpose" (be it character-building, punishment for sin, a side consequence of God's gift of Free Will, etc.).

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 5:

My main angle in this series is show the way that the theist's arguments---those who *do* believe in a Purposeful Higher Creator (and I don't know if that describes you, but my guess is that it does not)---fail to make sense of a wide set of observations.

[ToddAllenGates]

5 of 5:

Theistic arguments can work when it comes to highly selective situations ... but when it comes to situations such as "why" God ordered (or couldn't control) tsunamis that kill hundreds of thousands, religious explanations become loopy at best.

[Largo64]

Good start, Todd. I'll be watching for the rest of the series. I have an opinion, but I'll wait to express it until the last episode.

[ToddAllenGates2]

> Good start, Todd. I'll be watching for the rest of the series.

Thanks Larry! Part 2 is being uploaded as I write.

> I have an opinion, but I'll wait to express it until the last episode.

Looking forward to the feedback!

[smalltownatheist]

Thanks for making this, Todd. I've sorta been on a kick writing about this stuff, and now I'll have something substantial to link to.

Can't wait for the rest!

[ToddAllenGates2]

> Thanks for making this, Todd.

Thanks, Tristan, for watching!

[thefakeyeti]

I think the most offensive is that pain is just an illusion

"Oh.. they don't REALLY feel pain... it is just an illusion"

and correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't an illusion pretty much just as bad/good as the real thing?

They perceive pain, therefore it is real!

[ToddAllenGates2]

> correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't an illusion pretty much just as bad/good as the real thing?

I tried explaining to my toddler that pain was just an illusion as he was getting his shots at the doctor's office, but for reason, he just didn't get it ...

> the most offensive is that pain is just an illusion

Furthermore, it becomes all the more nonsensical when applied to wildlife suffering.

[8WholeThing]

I'm looking forward to the rest of your analysis.

[ToddAllenGates2]

> I'm looking forward to the rest of your analysis.

Thanks - part 2 is being uploaded as I write!

[canerdc]

Cool

[NoirShadowFall]

Surely we need a certain degree of suffering to know the difference between the good times & bad? As a sort of mirror as it were.

[ToddAllenGates2]

1 of 3:

> Surely we need a certain degree of suffering to know the difference between the good times & bad? As a sort of mirror as it were.

Similar to the point brought up by klangsteiner on suffering being caused by "attachment," the idea that suffering helps us know the difference between the good times & bad *can* make sense out of select observations, but just doesn't hold up as well when we broaden our perspective.

[ToddAllenGates2]

2 of 3:

Look at the hundreds of thousands of people---including children---hacked to death with machetes during the Rwandan civil war: saying that this was a "lesson from God to help us reflect on the good times" strikes me as a rationalization stretched beyond the breaking point of believability.

[ToddAllenGates2]

3 of 3:

And even if we *could* say that instances such as human massacres help the survivors appreciate life, how well does this serve to explain wildlife suffering? Take the mother seal that witnesses its baby being ripped apart by a polar bear: is this a divine arrangement that helps prey appreciate that *they're* not the ones being eaten alive (at least not yet!)?

[klangsteiner]

What about the idea that suffering is inevitable and that its origin is attachment (the first 2 noble truths)?

[8WholeThing]

I think the Buddhist explanation comes under the non-supernatural explanation that the universe is indifferent to creature suffering, ie, the universe is also indifferent to the attachment/detachment of the creatures.

[ToddAllenGates2]

1 of 2:

> What about the idea that suffering is inevitable and that its origin is attachment (the first 2 noble truths)?

I agree with 8WholeThing, in that much of Buddhism (depending on the sect anyway) is not "theistic," and sees a universe that's indifferent to creature suffering.

As for the origin of suffering being "attachment," that makes sense out of select observations, but doesn't do as well when we broaden our perspective:

[ToddAllenGates2]

2 of 2:

Look at horribly deformed babies that die from their birth defects within months, or the underweight baby eagle that's pecked to death by its healthier siblings, or the 15-year-old dog that's crippled by arthritic pain. Can we really say that such instances of pain are caused by these creatures' "attachments"?

[DefaultPosition]

I try not to miss any of your vids. Always enjoy listening to what you have to say.

[ToddGates]

> Always enjoy listening to what you have to say

Very flattering---thank you!

[TheThinkingMinority]

I can't wait to see the rest.

[ToddGates]

> I can't wait to see the rest.

Thanks ... I'm not yet sure exactly how many videos this series will take (it will be more than four), but I should have them all done within the next two weeks.