Much pain is beneficial. End of. — AmadeusD

In nature, yes. In intelligent design, not so end of.

The pain is required for the growth to accrue. — AmadeusD

No, it isn't. It is a side-effect that does not invariably occur.

Given we are pain-perceiving creatures, anyhow. — AmadeusD

If that is a 'given', it was given by that same loving god.

So, either hte position is God imbued us with Pain, and sometimes that's a good thing — AmadeusD

God had an idea that something very unpleasant and sometimes fatal was a good idea. I suspect that a kinder omnipotence would have found a better way to achieve those good ends.

or it is that Pain is a moral wrong, in and of itself. — AmadeusD

It's nothing to do with morals, if it happens through natural evolution. If it's deliberately inflicted, it's at least morally questionable. Or would be, if done by a mortal.

Why would you not assent to the view that pains can be arbitrary or not? — AmadeusD

Of course it's not arbitrary. It's a process of biology and has explicable causes.... unless invented and inflicted by an omnipotent creator, in which case that creator is not deserving or praise.

God had an idea that something very unpleasant and sometimes fatal was a good idea. I suspect that a kinder omnipotence would have found a better way to achieve those good ends. — Vera Mont

:up:

If a deity is "omnipotent" (which entails "omniscience"), then why didn't it create a reality that fulfills its goals without severely, often fatally, harming its creatures? And if it cannot, then, as Epicurus asks, why call this deity – why worship – "God"? No doubt, just another informal version of

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

In nature, yes. In intelligent design, not so end of. — Vera Mont

Unfortunately, yes. If the world is designed such that pains indicate, very well, what to avoid, then its still end of. Excesses aren't exactly attributable to design.
That said, not sure why you're reducing hte discussion to allow for restrictive points?

No, it isn't. It is a side-effect that does not invariably occur. — Vera Mont

Point to me a situation in which my point is violated? Unfortunately, Vera, we live in THIS world in which my statement is completely true.

If that is a 'given', it was given by that same loving god. — Vera Mont

Yep. I see no issue other than your discomfort here. Which is reasonable. Just doesn't bear.

God had an idea that something very unpleasant and sometimes fatal was a good idea. I suspect that a kinder omnipotence would have found a better way to achieve those good ends. — Vera Mont

And you may simply be unable to comprehend reasoning beyond Human reasoning. Not sure why you'd think you could - or, at any rate, apply human reasoning to the (claimed) omnipotent designer. Seems totally ridiculous to me.

If it's deliberately inflicted, it's at least morally questionable. Or would be, if done by a mortal. — Vera Mont

Bingo. I'll leave that there.

unless invented and inflicted by an omnipotent creator, in which case that creator is not deserving or praise. — Vera Mont

Ah. So you're the omniscient one. Nice :)

You're mkaing some utterly preposterous leaps. What I said was a non sequitur was this:

Accordingly, we generally leave those decisions to a power beyond ourselves. — BitconnectCarlos

(have fixed the formatting, though)Which has nothing to do with my opinion or feelings regarding the importance of human life. It is a clear non sequitur with absolutely no logic to it.
Your suggestions above are further non sequiturs to avoid the clear gap between the (possible) fact we do not grasp 'life' properly, and that we then simply give up our faculties to a (never even close to proven) supernatural entity in blind trust. Risible.

Who's to say humans are worth more than cockroaches? — BitconnectCarlos

Without invoking God, tell me why you'd think otherwise? Or is the case that you are encased in a religious framework to such a degree that you cannot fathom other thoughts?

Without invoking God, tell me why you'd think otherwise? Or is the case that you are encased in a religious framework to such a degree that you cannot fathom other thoughts? — AmadeusD

I'm quite capable of thinking atheistically.

If so we're on the same page then -- no objective reason for valuing human life over cockroach life. We just have that bias because we're humans but it's not grounded in anything objective.

I read you loud and clear. We can go down that road. See where it takes us.

We just have that bias because we're humans but it's not grounded in anything objective. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree. However, it doesn't seem to me a non sequitur to reject this reasoning because it's not objective. Perhaps this is why I have more comfort with it.

I generally prefer to believe and act in accordance with (my perceived) reality, but whatever your floats your boat.

This makes no sense to me.

Reality is that humans are biased towards humans because we're human. You've provided literally nothing else to support any other position. Which is odd, because I had asked for what causes you to think something other than the above.

Could you attempt?

Yes, it's just another bias. There's a million of them that we have and we generally strive to overcome these cognitive biases in our thinking.

If our natural pro-human bias is not accordance with reality and is just another cognitive bias then I will seek to unlearn it like I do with other cognitive biases. I only seek to act in accordance with true reality. I don't see the problem. Save 100 cockroaches or 100 babies? Who cares -- flip a coin, I guess.

Excesses aren't exactly attributable to design. — AmadeusD

Predation, parasitism and disease are.

That said, not sure why you're reducing hte discussion to allow for restrictive points? — AmadeusD

I was responding to specific posts. The discussion is not under my control.

Point to me a situation in which my point is violated? — AmadeusD

That pain causes growth or that all growth is accompanied by pain? I'm not sure I actually get a point about either, but I know that the first is untrue and the second is it is not always true.

Unfortunately, Vera, we live in THIS world in which my statement is completely true.

Whether fortunately or otherwise, Amadeus, THIS world came about through natural forces and evolution. Which accounts for why the design isn't all that intelligent.

And you may simply be unable to comprehend reasoning beyond Human reasoning. — AmadeusD

Oh, no - I've heard ans understand all the excuses and apologetics. I just don't respect them.

Not sure why you'd think you could - or, at any rate, apply human reasoning to the (claimed) omnipotent designer. — AmadeusD

Supposedly made in the bastard's image; able to comprehend his commandments; required to believe his idea of love has some relation my concept of love.
Just not getting that love, y'know?

So you're the omniscient one. — AmadeusD

No, I'm just an ordinary mortal who can smell it when somebody tries to sell her two fish well past their sell-by-date.

If our natural pro-human bias is not accordance with reality — BitconnectCarlos

It is reality. I have asked you to put forward something that either discusses, or displaces this.

You have failed to do so. So, once again, can you please attempt this? Otherwise it just plum seems you're just pretending to have an opinion, which reduces to a blind belief (as noted). I would genuinely like you to attempt to either discuss the bias, and why you reject it ("not reality" does nothing for me. Support it. If your "Reality" is to immediately jump to your religious views whole-sale, I can do nought but chuckle. That isn't an answer to this query).

Predation, parasitism and disease are. — Vera Mont

Yes. And, ecologically, these, prima facie, have great functional value. (I should be clear - I have no religious position and do not intend to defend one. I just find your line of reasoning chaotically dismissive).

hat pain causes growth or that all growth is accompanied by pain? I'm not sure I actually get a point about either, but I know that the first is untrue and the second is it is not always true. — Vera Mont

Hmmm. This may be a misunderstanding. I did not intimate either of these positions, to my mind. I said, in regard to (i think it was actually bone growth, but Im pivoting here without losing any relevance)

The pain is required for the growth to accrue(as an actual fact of the universe in which we live. — AmadeusD

This was a discreet example, pointing out that pain is required in various circumstances to achieve the benefit you're wanting without to get without the pain. Fine. But we live in the universe as it is.
Unfortunately, to adequately grow muscle, muscle fibres must be destroyed and that hurts. This has a dual nature. In injury, we need to know this is happening to address it adequately. While I hear your gripe, I just don't see what it has to do with the potential 'nature' of a God. It does it's job well.
(The same pain can be psychologically satisfying in situations of non-injury too(I'm thinking here of perhaps after nine rounds of Jiu Jitsu I cannot fucking move for the pain- but i am happier than heck). )
Additionally, I do not think the variability of pain is relevant. That's a function of it as-is. We tend to think people who do not adequate feel pain are, in fact, defective.

Additionally, again, I think it is entirely coherent to just say 'well, if God exists, you're wrong and misapprehending your reality'. A cop-out that the religious like to fall-back on - but there's no good reason to reject that at this point in the discussion. You not liking shit doesn't make the above illogical despite my sincere sympathy (and in other examples, I'd say the problem of Evil is live. Just think this one fails).

Whether fortunately or otherwise, Amadeus, THIS world came about through natural forces and evolution. Which accounts for why the design isn't all that intelligent. — Vera Mont

These are conclusions. They do nothing for the discussion.

Oh, no - I've heard ans understand all the excuses and apologetics. I just don't respect them. — Vera Mont

You clearly do not understand what I have just put forward. It stands, and there is literally nothing you could say that would defeat it. It may be the case that you're incapable of understanding divine reason (as would every other person in existence, rendering your objection moot).

his commandments — Vera Mont

Not his reasoning. You've done well to defeat your own point here :P

No, I'm just an ordinary mortal who can smell it when somebody tries to sell her two fish well past their sell-by-date. — Vera Mont

If you're an ordinary mortal almost all of your claims above are pure nonsense. :) That was my point. The smell of your own farts notwithstanding

And, ecologically, these, prima facie, have great functional value. (I should be clear - I have no religious position and do not intend to defend one. I just find your line of reasoning chaotically dismissive). — AmadeusD

It's coherently and consistently dismissive of the idea of intelligent design by a benevolent deity.

Who's to say humans are worth more than cockroaches? This is where your worldview leads you. — BitconnectCarlos

Sometimes it can, but certainly not always. Sounds like the observation of William T Craig rather than that of an urbane Jewish man.

And in fairness, this is also where a Christian or religious worldviews can lead you. I remember talking to a couple of elderly former Nazi's back in the early 1990's. They were good Christians, of course. Lutherans, as it happened. They calmly described Jewish folk as cockroaches (as per the Nazi propaganda) - and were sure God would be good with that. They even referenced Martin Luther's antisemitic screed, 'On the Jews and their Lies'.

I also recall more recently meeting with a student social worker of Hindu background. In his view, somewhat ironically, the homeless and the beggars were destined to die of poverty and isolation as a result of Karma. 'They are like insects,' he explained. 'We shouldn't help them.'

I don't think misanthropic nihilism is the sole end result of secularism, it's common in religious circles too. Religious nihilism along with a cavalier disregard for the 'sacredness' of human life seems to be part of the practice of many religions.

It's coherently and consistently dismissive of the idea of intelligent design by a benevolent deity. — Vera Mont

I can smell your farts from here, Vera :) Not too bad.

*

And in fairness, this is also where a Christian or religious worldviews can lead you. I remember talking to a couple of elderly former Nazi's back in the early 1990's. They were good Christians, of course. Lutherans, as it happened. They calmly described Jewish folk as cockroaches (as per the Nazi propaganda) - and were sure God would be good with that. — Tom Storm

Tom, these are not good Christians. "All Jews are cockroaches" necessitates that Jesus is a cockroach. :sweat:

One can believe themselves to be a good Christian. One can call themselves, outwardly (and even maybe inwardly) a good Christian. But none of that makes one a good Christian.

Religious nihilism along with a cavalier disregard for the 'sacredness of human life seems to be part of the practices of many religions. — Tom Storm

I'm not talking practice. I'm talking Scripture.

Tom, these are not good Christians. "All Jews are cockroaches" necessitates that Jesus is a cockroach. — BitconnectCarlos

Tell that to the millions who used faith and notions of goodness to justify their projects.

I'm not talking practice. I'm talking Scripture. — BitconnectCarlos

You're almost there. Keep thinking this through. People use scripture to justify any practice, in all religions in all countries.

The problem with religions is that there is no objective basis for morality. It is always an interpretation of or a personal preference of scripture. Scripture is the multiple choice worldview, leading in any direction we, or our priestly class, believe God says we should go.

It is reality. I have asked you to put forward something that either discusses, or displaces this. — AmadeusD

I am discussing it.

See the descriptive/prescriptive distinction. On a descriptive level we have a pro-same species bias. That says zero about whether it should be maintained rationally.

Typically we learn about cognitive biases in order to unlearn them & improve our thinking.

It's like if I were to say "well humans naturally have confirmation bias, what's the problem?" Well, we naturally try to unlearn that to get our thinking more in line with objective reality.

And the reality in this case is that there is no objective reason for preferring a human over a cockroach.

"But what about subjective reasons?"

I don't care. I seek to act in accordance with objective reality and if that gets you mad then anger is derived from an irrational source.

Tell that to the millions who used faith and notions of goodness to justify their projects. — Tom Storm

Sure, ok. But you're deflecting here. My point is that it is utterly absurd for a devout Nazi to declare himself a "good Christian." The Nazi is outside the fold.

Peopel use scripture to justify any practice, in all religions in all countries. — Tom Storm

There may be multiple plausible interpretations but there are other interpretations that are completely implausible and therefore flatly wrong. "Open to interpretation" doesn't mean all interpretations are valid.

Thanks Carlos - I would have disagree prior to this post, that you're discussing it. Onward...

It's like if I were to say "well humans naturally have confirmation bias, what's the problem?" Well, we naturally try to unlearn that to get our thinking more in line with objective reality. — BitconnectCarlos

Why? What's the basis for unlearning it? (i realise this is now not at all a religious discussion, so happy to leave off if it feels too out-of-place in the thread). This is why non sequitur has been invoked. If there's no rational reason for the bias, there's no rational reason to try to remove it (though, in reality, it is rational to have an in-group bias. That doesn't require an objective basis for such and I would content it irrational to try to unlearn the bias. If you ahve to make that effort cognitively to overcome your actual reality (hehe, below..) then you're not doing God's work or employing rationality, on your terms).

I seek to act in accordance with objective reality and if that gets you mad then anger is derived from an irrational source. — BitconnectCarlos

This, once again, entirely and completely refuses to engage the question:

What bloody objective reality are you talking about? The one in which we actually have biases towards other humans??. Sounds like you're literally trying to overcome reality.

Sure, ok. But you're deflecting here. My point is that it is utterly absurd for a devout Nazi to declare himself a "good Christian." The Nazi is outside the fold. — BitconnectCarlos

From our perspective, yes.

There may be multiple plausible interpretations but there are other interpretations that are completely implausible and therefore flatly wrong. "Open to interpretation" doesn't mean all interpretations are valid. — BitconnectCarlos

What objective basis have you identified that allows us to determine which is valid and which is not?

And the point, to go back to where this began, is that any human belief system can lead to cockroaches and humans being views as analogous.

And before you say 'but scripture is pure' - we can easily point out that scripture requires interpretation. There is no interpretation free understanding of any scripture.

I can smell your farts from here, — AmadeusD

Argued like a scholar and a gentleman.

I had extremely little to work with. You can't blame a man for the tools he's given.

Do you believe there's better and worse ways to interpret a text whether be e.g. Cicero or a Buddhist text?

Jews have the Talmud for guidance on this, btw. Interpretations are discussed for ~3 centuries.

What bloody objective reality are you talking about? The one in which we actually have biases towards other humans?? — AmadeusD

The one that we both agreed upon for this dialogue -- that humans have no objective value above that of a cockroach. That it's all just our minds favoring our own kind.

Presumably in this reality there's still fallacies though, right? Like the gambler's fallacy? Probability still has a truth to it. Again, we typically try to rid our thinking of these improper elements.

I'm just running with your version of truth here.

Unfortunately, to adequately grow muscle, muscle fibres must be destroyed and that hurts. This has a dual nature. In injury, we need to know this is happening to address it adequately. While I hear your gripe, I just don't see what it has to do with the potential 'nature' of a God. It does it's job well. — AmadeusD

I agree with that. I wouldn’t say unfortunately. It’s more like, unfortunately, we humans ruminate about and dramatize every little spark of the nervous system.

Poor old pain, such an easy target for derision.

But pain pushes things one way, and pleasure another way, and without each you don’t get each direction. Some things fall into the fire and they sit there and get hot, others sit there and burn, others flinch and withdraw (like the hand of a functioning ape), and others explode forcing many other things to move in many directions (maybe blowing the fire out too).

Metaphysically put, change is a bundle of creation and destruction.

Bio/anthropo/psycho-logically put, pain is an organism’s way of regulating the destruction part to allow for the creative part.

Pain need not have anything to do with God, and need not be seen as better or worse than any other state - pain is change measured by the one undergoing the change.

Very simply, thank God or the universe or random functioning for pain. It’s how organisms feel their way across the desert, to find the shade, which might feel hot absent the trip across the desert first.

No reason to think pain or destruction could be banished from a physical universe and still build a universe anything like it is.

The destruction/creation dance is also discussed by Nietzsche, Aristotle, Epicurus, Darwin, Freud, and in the Bible, each in their own ways, each for a different reason or having a different effect upon the reader. Choose your poison, should it change you, something will be lost, and it might even hurt to live through.

You're not, though. You're just asserting certain values/disvalues not based on anything.

I've put forward: We have biases towards other humans (as opposed to cockroaches, in your account). This is rational.

You now need to either point out why it is irrational, or give a more rational reason to try to lose the bias. You haven't attempted either.

Probability still has a truth to it. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but probability seems to be the functional and rational response to Hume. Unsure how that plays out here, as Im not entire getting what you're trying to do.

I'm just running with your version of truth here. — BitconnectCarlos

You're not. Because I didn't put one forward. Everything you've responded with is a little bit out-of-place given what i've posited. The bolded above is all that should be responded to, here. I suspect your appeal to Divine sacredness is what's underlying the resistance. Happy to be wrong, if you're willing to actually elucidate..

I agree with that. I wouldn’t say unfortunately. It’s more like, unfortunately, we humans ruminate about and dramatize every little spark of the nervous system. — Fire Ologist

My inability to sleep due to hairs standing on end, dust landing on my eyelids, the tiniest excitation of my ear drums, a skin cell detaching etc.. says "fucking yes dude, this". LOL. It's an awful reality.

Pain need not have anything to do with God, and need not be seen as better or worse than any other state - pain is change measured by the one undergoing the change. — Fire Ologist

I think I/we may have misinterpreted what Vera was doing/saying in those exchanges - but I would say she simply made up a lot of the context, in that regard. Nevertheless I am quite sympathetic to her position. Just htink her discussion here betrays a lack of focus (and perhaps a faulty commitment to an emotional response).

You now need to either point out why it is irrational, or give a more rational reason to try to lose the bias. — AmadeusD

It's irrational for a few reasons.

In-group bias is common among humans. As humans we have an inborn bias towards our own race/ethnic group. We all work to undo that unless we just want to embrace it and embrace racism.

Speciesism is the same deal. Peter Singer talks about this. Species of animals are just different forms of being, one is no higher than the other.

I know you’re merely clarifying a finer distinction with Vera, and who the atheists and the believer(s) are here, and maybe I’m misreading things, but using pain to show how God was dumb or evil or non-existent, leaves us right back in a position to asses the role of pain in the mix, and I agree with your assessment.

It's coherently and consistently dismissive of the idea of intelligent design by a benevolent deity. — Vera Mont

Pain sucks. But if we want to live at all, we’re going to have to work with it. I didn’t say like it, I said work with it.

It's irrational for a few reasons. — BitconnectCarlos

What are they? Your next lines were simply states of affairs without any argument about whether or not it should be. It's certainly rational, on average, to prefer flourishing of humans in the sense that we are far more apt to assist one another, for example.
It would need to be a very, very strong set of reasons to reject that bias. Singer barely gets close - his arguments are more akin to Parfit's in that they fairly soundly refute self-interest theory on it's own terms, but don't establish any reason to adopt either a total change in stance, or what other stance could be considered more rational in the actual world.