untitled
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:44:43 -0400
From: Mike Ryder <mike@mryder.com> Add To Address Book
Subject: Re: A rebuttal to shadow extract - part 2
To: [Family member B]
Cc: [Family member A]
Hi it's me again here with part two
---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:45:02 -1200
>From: [Family member B]
>Subject: RE A world in shadow extract.
>To: Mike Ryder
>
>I will try to reduce this question of suffering to very simple
terms.]
>SUPPOSE that you are driving your car and your car hits a bee going
>about its usual business.
>This is so trivial and commonplace an event that nobody is likely
to get
>emotional and blame God about it.
agreed
>But I must point out that it is not trivial or commonplace to the
bee.
>It either gets splattered on your windscreen or is bounced off in a
>broken and damaged condition.
agreed. I'm not sure I agree that a bee is a sentient being, and
has the capability of understanding a drastic change in its
predicament. But I take your point.
>The question for you to answer is: Whose fault is this?
Whose fault is what? That the bee met with an accident? I
would suggest that there is no intent to cause harm from any party
involved. Therefore it seems to make little sense to try and
assign fault. To say that it's the driver's fault implies that
the driver had some knowledge of where the bee would be and was capable
of avoiding it. Assigning fault that the vehicle makes no sense
as the vehicle is an inanimate object. Assigning thought to bee
implies giving the bee the power of reasoning and the ability to
foresee the consequences of its own actions. I think this is
rather a stretch.
>I would venture to say that this sort of disaster was quite unusual
>before the advent and general usage of the motor car.
I think this is a very safe statement as you would indeed struggled to
see a bee maimed by motorcar before they were in fact any motorcars to
maim bees. There were however plenty of other bee disasters
available such as parasites, disease and natural bee predators. I
note your use of the term disaster in the sense. I agree that it
pejorative term and needs to be put in context when used. From a
humanitarian point of view this disaster is not comparable to disasters
such as the tsunami, World Trade Centre destruction, London bombings,
and the potential famine about to hit south Niger.
>Plainly therefore, this mayhem is entirely man's fault and reveals
that
>he doesn't really care about creature suffering (unless it is
his own).
I disagree. It's no more man's fault than it is bee's
fault. It also say that people selectively care about creature
suffering, they keep one's, the real ones, the ones that have special
significance to individuals are more likely to engender concern then
those that are commonplace, unnoticed, or wild. Of course this is
a gross generalisation is each individual values differently different
forms of life. Some people literally will not hurt a fly, while
others will happily butcher their own family. As a species I
think it reasonable to say that collective morality towards other
species with which we share this planet has improved over time but
certainly is far from perfect. Some people certainly enjoy
suffering whether it be the suffering and others of animals or of
themselves.
>I have used the illustration of a mere insect because it doesn't
carry
>any emotional baggage, but God, who cares about all his creatures,
still
>lets it happen.
Or to put it another way, this mystical supernatural being, who knows
everything that is going to happen, and has the power to prevent it
from happening (by definition), is still content to callously disregard
the disastrous consequences for those involved. I'm not sure how
this equates with the concept of caring it sounds to me more like
indifference.
>Going up a degree to consider animals, it is remarkable that animals
>when given half a chance will virtually worship their owners.
I assume you are referring to domestic animals, actually domestic
pets. Most farm animals would not even acknowledge their owner,
and certainly the vast majority of animals on the planet do not have an
owner to acknowledge. Domestic heads, mostly cats and dogs, will
acknowledge their owners, although I think dogs are probably the only
ones that might actually worship them. I don't know why this
would seem remarkable to you as the dog receives all at requires into
reserve food shelter warmth and emotional support from its owner.
>However,
>animals are not at all immune from disease and other similar trials
to
>our own. I don't know what they think about it but most
appear to quite
>stoical when trouble strikes (and possibly thereby set a lesson for
the
>atheist).
I think their animals instinct when experiencing injury or sickness is
to find a safe place where it can remain quiet extending the energy
except that required to combat that ailment. I'm afraid you don't
have to be a little more precise about the lesson for the atheist
because they had no idea what you're referring to here.
Perhaps you are inferring to atheists and not stoic when sick or
injured. I have no idea of this is true or not and I don't see
what possible relevance. I assume I'm wrong with my inference.
>That leaves the human portrayal of misery as per your extract.
>God lets that happen too, so at least he is consistent.
Agreed. Consistently callous or indifferent or more likely non-existent.
>My question to you is whether you can conceive some sort of world
>wherein these clashes of forces cannot take place?
Absolutely. Such an existence potentially exists in everybody's
brain. But I suspect this is not what you mean. You're
probably recurring to a physical place akin to be planet Earth.
If I am restricted to the laws of science as we know them then it's
tough to conceive of a Utopian environment. It certainly is
possible to perceive on improvements in our current environment just as
our current daily environment is generally an improvement over times
past.
>I think that if you can do so then you will prove to be more
intelligent
>than God - and he has demonstrated his intelligence by creating the
>universe.
I'm not sure what sense you are using the word intelligence. My
working definition goes something like this "The capacity to acquire
and apply knowledge". Applying the concept of intelligence to an
all-knowing, all-powerful theistic supernatural entity does not make
any sense. By definition this entity cannot acquire knowledge has
it must already know everything there is to know. As for creating
the universe this would be infinitely trivial task for said entity.
I certainly have no desire to be compared with any God.
Mike Ryder
bravenet.com