Since The Christian Delusion has been shown to be a massive flop, John Loftus isn't trying to give actual arguments anymore, but is, instead, appealing to emotions with pictures. Dr. Seuss atheology.
If his video shows that there's an unanswerable problem of evil for the theist, then this video is just as good for showing that there's an unanswerable problem of good for the Darwinian.
Pass me a hanky, John!
This looks like the lion has capacity for memory and positive emotion, although it may be easy to be given to anthropomorphizing.
ReplyDeleteThat shirtless guy walking into the scene makes me suspicious that it's a more controlled environment than they are letting on. The basic storyline may be true enough though.
ReplyDeleteIf that lion was hungry enough, those friends of his may have been dinner. And he surely ay have felt guilty afterwards, and sorrowfully repented.
ReplyDelete"Can a perfectly good God be reconciled with this amount of suffering? (Not a chance!)."
How about this suffereing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxJo3w5Ur8Y&feature=related
I think a good God can be reconciled with suffering. Animals experience God's common grace not as a response to their demerit but still without deserving it. You cannot deserve to be created and placed on this earth and have all your needs met by God. God is never obligated to be merciful to anything He has created. Grace being unmerited favor is never owed. If God witholds His grace and allows suffering He does nothing wrong. Not only because grace is never owed but because He has morally sufficient reasons for witholding grace and allowing suffering. He's the Creator we are the creation. He has rights and prerogatives that His creation doesn't.
ReplyDeleteCHRISTIAN THE LION was introduced to an older male lion, "Boy", and subsequently to a female cub Katania in order to form the nucleus of a new pride.
ReplyDeleteThe pride suffered many setbacks: Katania was possibly devoured by crocodiles at a watering hole; another female was killed by wild lions; and Boy was severely injured, afterwords losing his ability to socialize with other lions and humans, and was shot by Adamson after fatally wounding an assistant. [Wikipedia]
Lions, like cats, are obligate carnivores, with the appropriate physical anatomies and instincts.
ReplyDeleteCarnivores have large, sharp canine teeth and large brains, and the musculoskeletal structure of their forelimbs permits greater flexibility for springing at prey.
Many carnivores remain in and defend a single territory. Dogs, cats, bears, weasels, raccoons, hyenas, and (according to some classifications) seals and walruses are all carnivores.
However, not all members of the order Carnivora are obligate (obligatory) carnivores. The difference? Take bears, for example. While bears kill and eat flesh, most of their species are omnivorous (eating both animal flesh and plant material.) We humans are omnivorous; so are dogs. Omnivores can live quite well on a combination of both meat and plant foods. Our intestinal tracts are quite long, and can do a satisfactory job of digesting, extracting the nutrients we need, including protein from legumes, rice, and some vegetables, and eliminating the rest as waste.
Why are Cats Obligate Carnivores?
Cats "guts" are much shorter than ours. They do not have the ability to fully digest and utilize the nutrients in plant material. (Proteins derived from vegetables are much less easily digested, lack many of the vitamins, minerals and micronutrients that are necessary for complete absorbtion and must be consumed in much greater quantities to obtain sufficient energy for healthy functioning.)
Although theoretically, a cat might get enough protein from plant material to exist, they need sufficient quantities of the amino acid taurine in order to thrive. Taurine is found primarily in the muscle meat of animals, and is most highly concentrated in the heart and liver. (Though some is found in eggs, and one lion that I read about apparently lived on eggs and milk, not a complete vegetarian, but at least it got some taurine, enough to avoid blindness.)
In the wild, cats may get a small amount of grain and other plant material from the stomachs of their prey, but our domestic cats really do not need large amounts of grain. And in fact, some carnivorous mammals eat vegetation specifically as an emetic.
The diet of a hypercarnivore consists of more than 70% vertebrate meat, that of a mesocarnivore 50-70%, and that of a hypocarnivore less than 30%, with the balance consisting of nonvertebrate foods, which may include fungi, fruits, and other plant material.
Of course many other types of animals live on other animals, not just mammalian carnivores such as the ones mentioned above. For instance ladybugs gorge themselves on aphids. The hydra family of microscopic organisms and also larger species of animals consisting of a gut and tentacles like the jellyfish, have cells that shoot out poisonous stingers at other living things, after which they devout their catch.
Some animals eat their own young, or their young eat them, or they eat their mates.
Some animals even specialize in eating dead animals, that die of natural causes or that were killed by carnivores.
And this has all been going on for a long long time, with no evidence of an all vegetarian Eden "in the beginning." There's fossils for instance of dinosaurs with the boney remains of their last meal inside their abdominal cavity, or bones, shells, etc. inside coprolites (fossilized dung). There's even a ratio of certain minerals inside fossilized bones that agrees with the present differences in that ratio between vegetarian animals and carnivorous ones today. But there is no evidence of a time when every living thing ate only vegetables.
Ed, I have no clue as to the relevance of your post.
ReplyDeleteAs for "vegetarianism" before the fall, have you read this:
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/animal_death_before_fall.html
And, I, for one, understand why atheists want the rest of us to be vegetarians: they want to bring us down to their intellectual level:
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6549.html
I know some atheists pride themselves on their intellect. They should thank God he allowed and made humans able to eat meat.
Furthermore, this scientist says meat eating was *essential* to human survival:
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html
Now, I understand that John Loftus says God should have just made us plants with brains, but who takes that guy seriously?
Paul,
ReplyDelete1) There is no "Darwinian" Problem of either Good or Evil. Primates display both aggression and sociability. Humans likewise.
2) I'm not a vegetarian. But if you read my post you can see that humans are omnivores, and we can get along by eating a higher percentage of plant protein than obligate carnivores.
3) I read the piece you suggested. Are you saying you approve of his view that there was "death" before "the fall?" Does that mean you also agree that there were carnivorous animals eating one another before "the fall?" Cool. Are you also an old-earth creationist? I'll have to suggest that piece to YEC. Thanks for suggesting it.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteThe piece you suggested I read also contained this passage: "Notice that the lions 'seek their food from God,' and that God gives them 'their food in due season,' opening his hand to 'satisfy them with good.' In an earlier treatment of this subject I wrote: 'Such provision is a testament to the goodness of the Creator in caring for His creation.'
OBSERVATION: The author is admitting t hat God is feeding some parts of his creation to other parts. How exactly does that prove God's creation is "good?"
Isn't that like stealing from Peter to pay Paul?
Paul,
ReplyDeletePer the quotation from the Christian article above that you suggested I read, I want to add the following observations:
The author of Psalm 104 about God feeding the lions forgot to mention that “the Lord” either gives lions “their meat in due season;” Or has them be eaten by their own mother (because they are runts or deformed); Or has them be eaten by a rival male who has taken control of the pride; Or has them starve because their parents fail to bring enough food home or die trying; Or makes young lions the “meat” of some other predatory species that catches them off guard; Or (if they are male) has them grow up and be killed in combat by another male seeking territory or mates; Or makes them the “meat” for a parasite or disease organism. It’s all the same to “the Lord.”
In 1994 one thousand lions, one-third of the population of East Africa’s Serengeti park, died from painful convulsions by a virus that attacked their blood cells, lungs and brain, i.e., the Canine Distemper Virus. The lions probably picked up the virus from hyenas who picked it up from domesticated dogs that lived just outside the park. (That same year, a tenth of the 500,000 western gray kangaroos in South Australia and the 2.8 million gray kangaroos in neighboring New South Wales, went blind due to a mystery virus.) Let us all praise “the Lord” for supplying those viruses their “meat” in due season.
Ed,
ReplyDelete"1) There is no "Darwinian" Problem of either Good or Evil. Primates display both aggression and sociability. Humans likewise."
Good, that's what we argued in TID, glad you agree.
"2) I'm not a vegetarian. But if you read my post you can see that humans are omnivores, and we can get along by eating a higher percentage of plant protein than obligate carnivores. "
Does Loftus know of your moral failing?
"OBSERVATION: The author is admitting t hat God is feeding some parts of his creation to other parts. How exactly does that prove God's creation is "good?"
I guess you'd have to justify the presupposition that that's bad.
Also, this post answers Loftus at his own level. Since you disagree with Loftus, the post wasn't meant to be directed at you.
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
ReplyDeleteOn Thy wonderful works I will meditate...The Lord is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works...Thou dost open Thy hand, and dost satisfy the desire of every living thing...[By giving them other living things to prey upon? But then how is the desire of every living thing satisfied? – E.T.B.]...He will also hear their cry and will save them. [But if He “hears their cry and saves” them from being eaten by some living thing, then He is starving that other living thing. – E.T.B.] He gives to the beast its food, and to the young ravens which cry.
- Psalms 145:5,9,16,19 & 147:9
Speaking of how well “the Lord” “satisfies the desire of every living thing,” let’s take “the young ravens which cry” as a prime example. A recent study showed that one-third of adult birds and four-fifths of their offspring die of starvation every year (David Lack, “Of Birds and Men,” New Scientist, Jan., 1996). Not surprising, since birds have to eat from one-quarter to one-half their body weight daily, so starvation is a common killer of birds.
Neither does “the Lord” “save” the baby birds that get tossed out of their own nest by the young of a rival species, the cuckoo. The female cuckoo lays her egg in the nest of other birds, and when the cuckoo chick emerges from its egg it tosses the other eggs or other baby birds out of the nest, so only the cuckoo chick is fed by the other bird’s parents.
Nor does “the Lord” “save” the baby birds that I saw on the “Hunting and Escaping” video (in the Trials of Life series) which were dragged from their nests by sea birds of a rival predatory species in order to feed the predator’s own hungry chicks.
Nor does “the Lord” “save” baby birds tossed out of the nest by their own parents because their chicks were not developing properly or swiftly enough.
Ed,
ReplyDeleteAs a Calvinist I affirm that whatsoever happens is decreed by God, so you can spare me the lengthy posts.
Ed,
ReplyDeleteHere's the deal. You will post arguments or I'll simply delete your bloviations. I don't have time for your lengthy posts that read the bible pedantically and woddenly literal in all places minus any actual arguments (hint: questions are not arguments) or exegesis (hint: quoting a verse isn't exegesis).
Paul,
ReplyDelete1) I did not agree. I merely stated that in a Darwinian cosmos there is no such problem, but in a theistic cosmos, Darwinism DOES pose questions.
2) "Does Loftus know of your moral failing?" See reply above.
3) "I guess you'd have to justify the presupposition that that's bad." Paul, "bad" is a more slippery word than "causing suffering." We have a much better chance of agreeing on what causes physical and emotional pain than agreeing on what is "bad," because we share nervous systems that can register pain, and we are both social beings who understand the inner pain/distress of being misunderstood, misrepresented or maligned. But "bad" refers to far more things, including religious and metaphysical beliefs that you find "bad" but that others do not. "Bad" can also refer to paintings, music, etc., that you might not enjoy while someone else might. Therefore, "bad" is a word that has far broader connotations and is less universally agreed upon when describing various things, than are the words "pain and suffering." Can we agree to that distinction before moving on to further questions? (Even Lewis chose to address the problem of pain rather than the problem of evil.)
Paul,
ReplyDelete4) So far as addressing John at his own level, I don't see that you have done that. His video illustrated the universality of animal suffering. Your video demonstrated the isolated case of a lion cub raised by two loving human beings, a cub that grew up and later was released into the jungle to eat other animals.
In other words you left out the fact that Christian the lion's pride suffered many setbacks: Katania was possibly devoured by crocodiles at a watering hole; another female was killed by wild lions; and Boy was severely injured, afterwords losing his ability to socialize with other lions and humans, and was shot by Adamson after fatally wounding an assistant. [Wikipedia]
Paul,
ReplyDeleteAs a Calvinist are you saying that whatever is, is divinely decreed for the good of God? This is the best of all possible worlds that God hast decreed? I discuss that view in my online testimony. It seems a taut tight little circle of reasoning, allowing no light from outside into the circle, nor discourse with others. In other words if that's your view then I CAN see you deleting my posts, and even kicking up your heels at the sight of women and children being tossed into a lake of fire. And I suspect you have fears you'd rather not mention (except maybe to other Calvinists) as the result of entertaining such a tight circle of reasoning.
"As a Calvinist are you saying that whatever is, is divinely decreed for the good of God?" -Edward
ReplyDeleteI'd like to answer that as a Calvinist, if that's alright.
"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28
God cursed the earth. This is why a monitor lizard grabs a deer's hind leg with it's jaws, and the dear dies a painful death. Or chimpazees herd monkeys into a trap, and then rip their arms out of their sockets and eat them.
This world is cursed my friend.
But God, is going to make all things new. In fact Christ began the process when He said on the Cross, "It is Finished!"
Hope you will come to Christ, the One who died, and rose from the dead, as Dr. Luke tells us in his 2nd letter:
"In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself ALIVE to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God."
d,
ReplyDeleteI really can't understand your obsession. You act just like the religious are supposed to act, per TCD chs 1-3. Take a breath and make one comment, or is the shotgun method supposed to halt debate?
"1) I did not agree. I merely stated that in a Darwinian cosmos there is no such problem, but in a theistic cosmos, Darwinism DOES pose questions."
That's the problem with you, Ed, you "state" rather than argue.
I've already responded to Loftus's chapter, so it's not as if you can simply appeal to these kinds of things without arguing down the responses.
"2) "Does Loftus know of your moral failing?" See reply above."
I don't see where you've linked to your differences with PETA Loftus.
"I guess you'd have to justify the presupposition that that's bad." Paul, "bad" is a more slippery word than "causing suffering."
Loftus chose to phrase his argument in terms of "evil." So again you're not dealing with the context of dialogue this post was presented in.
I also don't think pain is intrinsically evil.
I also think suffering cannot be reduced to c-fibers firing. In fact, I don't see how you can account for pain at all; that is, if you're a physicalist about the mind.
"4) So far as addressing John at his own level, I don't see that you have done that. His video illustrated the universality of animal suffering. Your video demonstrated the isolated case of a lion cub raised by two loving human beings, a cub that grew up and later was released into the jungle to eat other animals.
There's many more cases than this one. Want to come over to my house, grab a beer, and watch my dog lick my face?
Anyway, Loftus's argument says that our entire world should be like the one in the video. We should all live forever, with no pain, sinning as we please, doing whatever we want to, never eating anything, and frolicking in the tall grass with animals. My video presented a slice of that, that's a slice Loftus can't account for. Moreover, as you've admitted, Darwinism cannot underwrite what we all call good about the video. If all the "good" stuff can be given your Darwinist interpretation, then what i said in my chapter is true: there's no evidence that would convince Loftus. If we lived in a world where everyone frolicked with animals as in the video, Loftus would complain about that too.
In other words you left out the fact that Christian the lion's pride suffered many setbacks: Katania was possibly devoured by crocodiles at a watering hole
I left out just as much as Loftus did.
"As a Calvinist are you saying that whatever is, is divinely decreed for the good of God?
Divinely decreed? Yes. "For the good of God," I don't even know what that means.
" This is the best of all possible worlds that God hast decreed?
No, I don't even think there is "a best of all possible worlds."
The rest of your comment was simply more of your ignorant rantings and attempts to box me into the fragile faith you had. Your faith was fragile from the get go, just waiting (hoping?) for someone to come and knock it down. You don't bother to quote me, you don't bother to understand my position, you don't bother to interact with my arguments, you don't bother to present serious arguments yourself, so why do you bother at all?