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

[ananiasacts]

What if a significant fraction of people really are little more then lazy, selfish, petty, cowardly, and stupid? Wouldn't any technology that induced mostly that type of person to spend most of their time exploring a fantasy in their own minds raise the applied level of intelligence and thus capability of their entire society? Religion could be a form of social antibody that encumbers the most inherently toxic minds in ways that tend to neutralize their deleterious impact on the rest of us.

[ceezmad1]

Natural world is indifferent?

What?

you are all wrong!

The world was created for me and only me!

my god is bigger than your good and he will reward me and punish you!

:)

[ToddAllenGates]

> my god is bigger than your god and he will reward me and punish you!

Unless we both happen to be worshipping the IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn), in which case we are of the same united loving community ... but wait, you said "he" will punish you, so you couldn't be an IPU follower -- meet you on the battlefield you godless heathen!

[mecca777]

Once again, top notch commentary. I dont know about animals suffering at the hand of animals. They have to eat too. A cheeta cant go to the store and buy gazelle steaks.

[ToddAllenGates]

> A cheetah can't go to the store and buy gazelle steaks.

And if it could, it would probably soon get fat and lazy!

From the naturalistic viewpoint, there's nothing insidious about the way life preys on life: it's just how life evolved. But if Creationism is right, then creature suffering raises some questions about why God designed life the way it is.

(This is one of the themes of my latest video: "The problem of suffering - Stalemating with the "no cognitive dissonance" Epydemic2020.)

[ananiasacts]

All you have to do is find a way to have a contest without any losers. Geometry seems to make that quite a challenge.

We like the idea of species, but don't like the cost individuals must pay to make them. It sort of explains our fiscal policies as well.

[thekykling]

Great series

[ToddAllenGates]

> Great series

Thanks -- if you made it through all 10 parts, I'm very flattered!

[natewheatshelf]

Votebots are bad.

[RabidAp3]

comment

[hugesinker]

I enjoyed this series and was sad when you said you wouldn't make one this long again.

So, a few followup questions: Why is there so much more joy than suffering? Does this discrepancy really reflect indifference? If it does, then what would not? Is the notion of "indifference to suffering" falsifiable in any universe less than a place where a God must interfere in our daily lives and constantly turn any set law of nature on its head with a casual disregard for any mortal rational thought?

[ToddAllenGates2]

> I enjoyed this series

Thanks!

> and was sad when you said you wouldn't make one this long again.

I have plans for lots more videos, but the ones I have in mind (at least at the moment) have a narrower focus, and won't need as much time as this one. But it's great to hear there are some people who will stick with me for over an hour!

[ToddAllenGates2]

1 of 5:

> So, a few followup questions: Why is there so much more joy than suffering?

For me, and maybe most of us in relatively well-off countries, I agree that there's probably more joy than suffering. I'm not sure, however, if that's the case in the big picture: all humans throughout the world over the last 50,000 years or so.

[ToddAllenGates2]

2 of 5:

And if we expand the big picture to the entire known universe and back to the beginning of time as we know it (13.73 billion years ago at the Big Bang), well, whatever joy there is on this tiny speck called the Earth is probably statistically insignificant.

[ToddAllenGates2]

3 of 5:

> Does this discrepancy really reflect indifference? If it does, then what would not?

I think what would *not* reflect indifference is if we could see evidence that the universe "cared" (like the way the universe "cares" in New Age storybooks, and like it does in the children's version of the Bible where they skip the savage sections and smooth out all inconsistencies and God/nature protects the righteous).

[ToddAllenGates2]

4 of 5:

> Is the notion of "indifference to suffering" falsifiable in any universe less than a place where a God must interfere in our daily lives and constantly turn any set law of nature on its head with a casual disregard for any mortal rational thought?

Trying to falsify the proposition that the universe is indifferent to suffering means showing *some* way that it's NOT indifferent.

[ToddAllenGates2]

5 of 5:

Turning nature on its head to protect the innocent would be the most dramatic way, but I suppose theists could the world as it currently exists to make that same point. But as far as I could tell, such an argument would rely on highly selective evidence, and would fall apart once a large set of observations were taken into account.

[CorndogMaker]

you are so polite, logical and systematically thorough in every one of your painstakingly detailed points that it is difficult to imagine how anyone could disagree with you if they have the attention span to just listen.

[ToddGates]

> you are so polite, logical and systematically thorough in every one of your painstakingly detailed points that it is difficult to imagine how anyone could disagree with you if they have the attention span to just listen.

TOO kind, but thank you!!

- Todd

[ToddAllenGates]

> A fitting conclusion to an excellent video series.

Thanks!

> Good idea to quote from the letters by Richard Dawkins on the subject of the tsunami: that sums it all up in a very eloquent way.

Yes, I thought Dawkins' closing lines were exceptionally beautiful, and touching too. It's one of several additions I made for this video series that are not in my book's version---it makes me want to revise my book again!

[yambag71]

yet again i'm impressed at your method of delivery. your technique is well researched, well worded, and very smooth. can't wait for the next series!!!

[ToddGates]

> can't wait for the next series!!!

Thanks for all the kind words, and yes, more series are in the works!

- Todd

[JoeyMarvelous07]

T-foot once used the phrase "criminally undersubsribed" to describe AronRa...It applies to you too. Fine series, getting your book soon. 5*

[ToddAllenGates]

> T-foot once used the phrase "criminally undersubscribed" to describe AronRa...It applies to you too. Fine series, getting your book soon. 5*

TOO kind, and thank you!!

- Todd

[zebruh]

Very good, Todd. I greatly appreciate your level-headed tone, your patient delivery, and staggeringly-well-researched ideas.

[ToddAllenGates]

> I greatly appreciate your level-headed tone, your patient delivery, and staggeringly-well-researched ideas.

TOO kind, but thank you!

[NoirShadowFall]

Well done :)

[hilbert54]

Good series.

Looks like not a lot of people made it through the ten parts.

Pity, as this is a great argument for the emptiness and impotency of the God concept.

Maybe you should do a short version and try and create a video response discussion with theists.

This might attract a larger audience to your well thought out and rationally presented work.

Regards

[ToddAllenGates]

> Good series.

Thanks!

> Looks like not a lot of people made it through the ten parts.

Well, I just posted this last night--more views may be on the way!

> Maybe you should do a short version and try and create a video response discussion with theists.

Conciseness *does* have its advantages ... hmm.. I've already got a lot of other projects on my To Do list, but this idea may be a worthy addition!

[8WholeThing]

While reading your book, I was imagining you reading the part of Scott and Largo64 reading the part of Chris. A YouTube collaboration would allow graphics for the sidenotes and footnotes.

At 6:08, you mention viruses and the parasitic wasp. I recently read that the wasp uses some DNA from an endogenous virus to code for a protein in its poison to disable the caterpillar's immune system to protect the wasp's eggs.

[ToddAllenGates]

> While reading your book, I was imagining you reading the part of Scott and Largo64 reading the part of Chris. A YouTube collaboration would allow graphics for the sidenotes and footnotes.

Thanks for the suggestion, and luckily for me, Largo is interested---now if only I could get a movie-maker whiz like ProfMTH or QualiaSoup to do the editing!

[ToddAllenGates]

> At 6:08, you mention viruses and the parasitic wasp. I recently read that the wasp uses some DNA from an endogenous virus to code for a protein in its poison to disable the caterpillar's immune system to protect the wasp's eggs.

I guess the caterpillars are like the Canaanites---they must have been doing something really bad to anger God enough to give that kind of power to the wasp!

[Largo64]

#8 strikes me as the most correct. Boiled down: shit happens.

I have thought for many years that the only way that children suffering from cancer, spinabifida, sicle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis and the like can possibly be acceptable is if there is NO god. If there were a god who could prevent those horrors and didn't do it he would have to be a monster. There could be no love in such a being.

Nature is indifferent to suffering. Shit happens!

[ToddAllenGates]

> #8 strikes me as the most correct. Boiled down: shit happens.

It took the nine previous videos to discuss all the loopy twists in logic that people are forced to make when they try to avoid that uncomfortable conclusion --- but yes, the only explanation that can coherently explain and predict a wide set of observations is: shit happens!

[8WholeThing]

SHHH! It happens!

Larry, I just wanted to draw your attention to my suggestion of a YT collaboration between you and Todd reading a passage from Todd's book.

[Largo64]

It sounds like a great idea to me. How about it, Todd?

[ToddAllenGates]

> It sounds like a great idea to me. How about it, Todd?

Sounds great to me too, and I'm flattered by your interest! I'll send you a private message on how we might do this.