>I've heard atheists argue strongly that if evolution is
>true, then the Christian god must be false because of this issue.
>However, I've seen it also used by Christians as an anti-evolution
>point.
I've not heard the pain issue used as an anti-evolution point before.
Perhaps you could fill me in. I would have expected pain in an
evolution scenario. What seems surprising to me is that there would
not be more of it. Pain avoidance would seem to be a big motivation to
be the winner in any struggle. I suppose too much suceptibility to
pain might make individuals avoid struggle so strongly that it would
deter evolution. On the surface of things, what surprises me in an
evolution scenario is that most species are not more highly developed
fighting machines than they appear to be. Why would the development of
a good brain in humans make some good fangs and claws less useful? I
am sure that one could go on speculating in this realm for a long time
without reaching any useful conclusions.
>First, since "good" is subjective, pain and suffering can be "good,"
>depending on the outcome.
I have trouble understanding the notions of good and bad in a
philosoophical sense. Like and don't like are pretty clear to me as
are pain and pleasure. I like the notion of a God who might deliver me
and my fellows from the human condition that I see. But, if I am to
like this God, I am motivated to search for explainations of how He
could tolerate this condition in the first place.
>Second, the Christian god did intentially inflict pain and suffering
on
>people in the Bible, and many claim today that their pain and
suffering
>is a test of faith by God.
>
>Hugh Ross, for example, argues that natural disasters are "good" even
>though they inflict heavy damage, suffering and loss of life.
>
>I guess my point is, if pain and suffering can be "good" depending on
the
>outcome, then the objection to God by atheists because of the pain and
>suffering, and the objection to evolution by Christians because of
pain
>and suffering becomes severely weakened....
>
>ANy thoughts?
Again, I have trouble with the good and bad thing. I do know I don't
like the way things are in this world. The conjecture that I have come
across so far that I find the most hopeful is something like this. God
deliberately creates an explosive situation when he creates creatures
with freedom to rebel. Perhaps this set of creatures is much larger
than those on this earth. Sure enough some rebel. Immediate death to
the rebels would devalue the freedom of all. Perhaps the best solution
is to let the rebels have their day until the group as a whole is very
ready to have the whole thing ended. I like this notion and would
prefer to find a way to see that the present state of things could be a
temporary situation. One of the big troubles with this notion is the
question of how stupid can the rest in the group be that even 10000
years isn't way too long to get sufficiently sick of the situation.
Another trouble is, of course, that tooth and claw do give the
appearance of being much older than 10000 years. However, if indeed
there is a deciever, I have to be very careful not to get "snowed".
Norm Smith
74532,66@compuserve.com