> Tom wrote
>
> >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
Well, that's their point. If the Christian God was real, then they
assume, based on Genesis, that the world He'd create wouldn't be filled
with pain, suffering, and death. However, if He did it through
evolution, it would contradict this view of God. Hence, they (some
Christians) feel that this an argument that shows evolution to be false.
Really, the atheists and Christians that use this argument are arriving
at the same conclusion (God and evolution are not compatible), but have
the opposite starting assumption: atheists assume evolution occurred in
the argument, whereas Christians assume God exists. I think the whole
argument, from both an atheistic and Christian standpoint is fallacous.
> 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.
Well, it's a complex system so you'd have to address that point case by
case. However, the argument I'm refering to is one of God putting us and
all life in a painful situation, such as evolution as a creative process.
>
> >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
So do I, which is another reason why I find the argument I described as
really meaningless.
> 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.
>
Well, I think this is really getting to my point. You'd have to know the
mind of God, why he does what he does, etc, to be able to address this.
People who put forward the argument over pain and suffering assume what
God is, what He wants, and why He does things - and their assumptions are
probably not valid.
Tom