My favorite version of the argument from evil is Paul Draper's evidential argument from evil, which focuses on the biological role of pain and pleasure. The naturalistic explanation for this is obvious. If animals are the products of evolution by natural selection, we would expect physical pain to aid survival. But not all physical pain and pleasure aids survival. For example, think of the horrible pain that inflicts many people with terminal illnesses. If the hypothesis of indifference is true, this is what we would expect: evolution by natural selection is not an intelligent process; there seems to be no way for creatures to have evolved so that they only feel pain when it will aid survival. In contrast, if theism were true, God could "fine tune" humans so that they experience pain only when it is necessary for some greater good. If God did exist, what possible reason could he have for allowing people with terminal illnesses have to endure such agonizing pain until they finally die? The chances that such a reason would intersect with the biological goal of survival is pretty slim. Thus, the biological role of pain and pleasure is more likely on the hypothesis of indifference than on theism.
i) “If animals are the products of evolution by natural selection, we would expect physical pain to aid survival.”
a) Why does Jeff imagine that natural selection selects for survivability? Don’t Darwinians tell us that 90% of species became extinct?
b) Why assume that pleasure must aid survival? Must chocolate mousse or chocolate gelato aid survival? Evolutionary psychology often reduces to unintentional parody.
ii) “In contrast, if theism were true, God could ‘fine tune’ humans so that they experience pain only when it is necessary for some greater good.”
a) Why must it be necessary for some “greater” good? Suppose it’s necessary for a mere good, rather than a greater good? Is that insufficient? If so, why so?
b) Jeff seems to think it’s a matter of engineering a body to be impervious to gratuitous pain. But that artificially isolates a body from its environment. How do you fine-tune a foot to enjoy the sensation of waking barefoot on the beach, but be insensate to stubbing your toe?
This seems to be one of those cases where atheists make thoughtless claims about optimal design without bothering to think through their position.
iv) “If God did exist, what possible reason could he have for allowing people with terminal illnesses have to endure such agonizing pain until they finally die?”
That’s a pretty dense objection. The real issue isn’t why terminal illness is a painful, but why some people suffer from a terminal illness in the first place. That involves the doctrine of the Fall, as well as a theodicy for the Fall.
Steve said...
ReplyDeleteThat’s a pretty dense objection. The real issue isn’t why terminal illness is a painful, but why some people suffer from a terminal illness in the first place. That involves the doctrine of the Fall, as well as a theodicy for the Fall.
Amen.
Another reason might be one that C.S. Lewis gave.
“Pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” (I'm not sure how accurate the quote is).
God sometimes uses pain to remind us of our need for and dependence on Him. To realize that this world, in some sense, isn't supposed to be this way in that it was not originally created this way. To cause us to hope for and realise that there's a another better world. To awaken our consciences and bring us to repentance and faith (or greater faith/trust if one is already a believer).
Also, sometimes pain is the result of the fall and is no indication of personal guilt.
At other times, pain may be the result of God's punishment for sin. If responded to correctly, the person might get saved before he/she dies. The person might even get healed in this life along with being saved as a bonus to the real and lasting blessing of salvation.
Jeffery Jay Lowder said:
ReplyDelete"If animals are the products of evolution by natural selection, we would expect physical pain to aid survival."
In addition to Steve's fine points, I'd like to say the following:
Medically speaking, it's been shown if we take pain produced by similar injuries with similar magnitudes, there's surprisingly quite a lot of variability in the experience of pain among different people in different situations.
For example, check out Henry Beecher's classic WW2 study on pain which showed many soldiers untroubled by injuries which normally would have produced excruciating pain. I'm leaving out the spadework for the moment but in the end Beecher concluded there's no direct relationship between the severity of the injury and the intensity of the pain experienced.
Similarly, athletes often sustain severe fractures with only minimal associated pain.
What's more, the mere suggestion that there will be treatment for pain can produce an analgesic effect.
By the same token, many patients find minor injuries (e.g. venipuncture) unbearable. Likewise the expectation of pain without other stimuli involved can in fact induce pain.
The mere suggestion that there may be pain or slightly worsening pain (e.g. venipuncture) can increase its perceived intensity, viz. the nocebo effect. For instance, people have died of fright after being bitten by a common and non-poisonous garter snake.
There are people who find pleasure in pain (e.g. sadomasochists).
Some pain does not involve the nervous system at all (e.g. phantom pain).
How does one explain something like fibromyalgia solely on naturalistic evolutionary grounds?
On the one hand, it's unsurprising that damage to nociceptive pathways can result in impairment or loss of pain sensation. On the other hand, it's surprising or at least paradoxical that damage to nociceptive pathways can also result in pain. For example, damage to peripheral nerves such as in diabetic neuropathy can result in referred pain.
Of course, I believe Dawkins himself has pointed out supernormal stimuli as well as idiopathic pain.
All this is just the tip of the iceberg too. One could easily go into much more medical scientific depth on the topic of pain. Not to mention pleasure too.
Anyway, how does all this aid survival? The standard naturalistic response (or at least the one I've most often seen) is to invoke the argument from poor design. But that raises other issues which we could address.