Comment: Problem of Evil (2) – Naturalism
Suffering and the concept of God – a naturalist view from induction
Verdict: the concept of God, though reassuring, is unsupported by evidence of pain and suffering and therefore seems an unnecessary explanation.
Observation: there is extensive pain and suffering amongst human and non-human animals regardless of age, sex, and circumstances.
Reasoning: all evidence suggests pain and suffering occurred for millions of years prior to the evolution of the human species.
Observation: there are many causes of pain and suffering. Some are from “natural” causes such as adverse weather and diseases and others from human and non-human animal actions, both deliberate and inadvertent.
Observation: we have natural explanations for most causes of pain and suffering. This has been one of the great intellectual achievements of humanity.
Observation: there seems to be no discernible overall pattern to occurrences of pain and suffering. Age, sex, genetic history, previous history, and physical location all play chance roles in potential pain and suffering. Our moral assessments and aspirations appear to have no bearing.
Conclusion (1): the “indiscriminate” nature of pain and suffering is consistent with natural “chance and circumstance” explanations of their causes. There seems no evidence of any overall purpose or moral objective in the distribution of pain and suffering. Humans often contribute to pain and suffering of others, including animals, but there is no evidence that we are, in some way, the true beneficiaries of such pain and suffering.
Conclusion (2): an overlay of a powerful anthropomorphic-style being contributes nothing to our understanding of pain and suffering despite placating some people about vagaries of life.
Alex McCullie
No comments
