Attenboroughs Reason For Atheism

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote]I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator. Attenborough[/quote]

I'd like to add to that. The strangler fig survives by destroying another tree. How do we reconcile creations which appear intrinsically evil with a benevolent God.

[sixpence]

Parasites as evidence against a benevolent God.... huh.. never thought about it... can't use the regular old "free will" argument since these animals don't have that. What is the standard argument for why we believe in God even though there are natural disasters? I think that one should work.

[Aloysius]

Through sin death and suffering entered the world, because without sin the world would have been united to the Eternal God and been incorruptible for all eternity; but because of human sin, it cannot yet be, so we live in a temporal world where all things are passing.

We sustain our life by the lives of animals, as do all carnivores. This is not evil, this is the natural order of the temporal world. They die that we might live. life in this world is not the ultimate good, it can be good to end life in this world for some other purpose, such as ending the lives of beasts to provide food for humans; or a Lion ending the life of an Antelope to provide food for lions (don't worry, when the Lions die, their bodies become the grass...).

Parasites are the same way; while a parasite making a human suffer is certainly tragic, all human suffering has huge meaning, because God experienced the ultimate human suffering. We live in a world where carnivores feast off of other animals and parasites feed off of other animals, and sometimes carnivores feast off of humans and sometimes parasites feed off of humans--the beasts are not evil for doing these things, because they are doing what is natural and, indeed, good for them to do. the human who suffers from such a thing joins in the suffering of Almighty God, Jesus Christ.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1320708346' post='2332853']
Through sin death and suffering entered the world, because without sin the world would have been united to the Eternal God and been incorruptible for all eternity; but because of human sin, it cannot yet be, so we live in a temporal world where all things are passing.

We sustain our life by the lives of animals, as do all carnivores. This is not evil, this is the natural order of the temporal world. They die that we might live. life in this world is not the ultimate good, it can be good to end life in this world for some other purpose, such as ending the lives of beasts to provide food for humans; or a Lion ending the life of an Antelope to provide food for lions (don't worry, when the Lions die, their bodies become the grass...).

Parasites are the same way; while a parasite making a human suffer is certainly tragic, all human suffering has huge meaning, because God experienced the ultimate human suffering. We live in a world where carnivores feast off of other animals and parasites feed off of other animals, and sometimes carnivores feast off of humans and sometimes parasites feed off of humans--the beasts are not evil for doing these things, because they are doing what is natural and, indeed, good for them to do. the human who suffers from such a thing joins in the suffering of Almighty God, Jesus Christ.
[/quote]
Thanks I was kind of hoping you'd post!

Genesis 3
[sup]14[/sup] And Jehovah God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
[sup]15[/sup] and I[b] will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. [/b]
[sup]16[/sup] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
[sup]17[/sup] And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: [b]cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; [/b]
[sup]18[/sup][b] thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee;[/b] and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
[sup]19[/sup] in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

[Nunsense]

Rom 8:22-26

[i]For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now. And not only so, but ourselves also, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to wit , the redemption of our body. For in hope were we saved: but hope that is seen is not hope: for who hopeth for that which he seeth? But if we hope for that which we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.[/i]


If creation suffers, it is because of our sin not because of God's lack of goodness.

[musturde]

I always found it interesting that different religions have different approaches to this question. For example, a Muslim professor of mine believes that God allows evil only if good can come out of it. To be honest, I haven't heard a good enough answer that would satisfy an atheist (maybe people don't care enough to come up with one?). If anyone knows one I'd be happy to hear it. The responses are often aimed to help the believer, not answer the atheist.

Edited November 8, 2011 by musturde

[Papist]

There is no good enough answer for an atheist.

[musturde]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1320785310' post='2333321']
There is no good enough answer for an atheist.
[/quote]
I doubt that. Much of our theology is grounded on non-Christian philosophy. Surely we could come up with some sort of philosophical argument.

[brandelynmarie]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320739704' post='2333095']
I always found it interesting that different religions have different approaches to this question. For example, a Muslim professor of mine believes that God allows evil only if good can come out of it. To be honest, I haven't heard a good enough answer that would satisfy an atheist (maybe people don't care enough to come up with one?). If anyone knows one I'd be happy to hear it. The responses are often aimed to help the believer, not answer the atheist.
[/quote]



[b] [size=4]Romans 8:28 [/size][/b]




[size=4][i]And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. [/i][/size]

Edited November 8, 2011 by brandelynmarie

[Aloysius]

the atheist would object to our explanation because the atheist would see life in this world as the ultimate good, pleasure and comfort as the ultimate goods. so if God does not provide unending non-suffering life in this world, He can't be all-good by their standards of goodness. but those things are not ultimate goods, our argument is that there is an ultimate higher good.

I wouldn't alter my argument all that much for an atheist, it's the same argument. we expect that there will be suffering in this world because we believe sin has corrupted nature. that's it, that's the argument with an atheist, we don't think that an all-good God would create a world without parasites and carnivores, we think an all-good God would create the world exactly as it is, as the best possible of all worlds, where suffering happens and greater good can come of it, and ultimately the greatest good--ultimate eternal goodness and justice, will come of it all. heaven will be all the better for a soul who lived life on earth with a worm crawling through their eye, especially if while on earth they offered up their suffering.

anyway, I don't really understand how we're supposed to alter the argument for an atheist. this isn't just to make a theist feel better about it, this is what we believe and the essence of the argument with the atheist is simply that they don't believe in eternal goodness outside of this life, and therefore something like this would present a problem for believing in ultimate goodness at all. but if there is eternal life, something like this can be meaningful; but if all life is mortal, all is meaningless. it's the simple disagreement between the atheist and the theist, and it doesn't really have to do with parasites--it has to do with whether there is life after death. accept that there is life after death, and this is not necessarily a problem; don't accept that there is life after death, and you're not going to believe in God anyway so this doesn't really prove or disprove anything to you.

[stevil]

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"
How is this good?

[BigJon16]

When something is taken out of context, it is never good.

Edited November 9, 2011 by BigJon16

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1320833966' post='2333667']
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"
How is this good?
[/quote]
How is disobedience good?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1320833966' post='2333667']
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"
How is this good?
[/quote]
okay, so this is a bit off topic, the topic is actually more about parasitic creatures who by their nature cause pain and suffering in other creatures, especially when they do so to humans, but I'll deal with the relevant portion. the husband "ruling over" the wife is a topic for another discussion, suffice it to say that it is something that can be interpreted in many different ways and in a Christian context the Christological imagery of Christ and the Church as man and woman, with the self-sacrificial love of the husband ruling as head of the household not as a tyrant, but in cooperation with the submission of the woman such that a man would never lead a woman against where she wants to go (like a man leading a dance, he cannot be a tyrannical leader of the dance or it'll be clumsy and they'll fall all over each other); anyway, that is a topic for another thread, which leads me to the relevant portion of that passage (even though it's technically not on topic per se, but I'll humor it)

so the question is about the pain of childbirth; again, pain is NOT evil, suffering is NOT evil; in fact, suffering can be quite good (Christ's sacrifice was the ultimate good, for instance). so in a fallen sinful world, when a child is brought in it is accompanied by suffering; so that when the child enters this fallen world, there is one person who from the outset is willing to sacrifice a lot to bring them into the world. in a fallen world, suffering is necessary and good, and the suffering that accompanies childbirth is definitely good when a fallen being enters the world, a fallen being in need of redemption, the kind of redemption that really only comes about by suffering.

of course, the pain of childbirth is part of the curse of the fall, and as such there is no moral reason that we cannot mitigate it with science and medicine and technology to the extent that it is possible (as Pius XII noted). while suffering is good, we needn't seek it out needlessly, and it is totally morally permissible to avoid suffering if possible. but there will always be suffering in the world, and it will always have goodness and meaning in it, for those who see it. that's the Christian message to the world: find meaning in your suffering.

[stevil]

The Atheist message to the world is tolerance and love.

[rkwright]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1320861463' post='2333817']
The Atheist message to the world is tolerance and love.
[/quote]

Why? If I am an Atheist why should I tolerate idiots? or love my enemies. I'd much rather just kill them and live in peace.

BTW this is a totally serious question. I see all morality as derived from God. No God, No morality.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1320854679' post='2333749']
(like a man leading a dance, he cannot be a tyrannical leader of the dance or it'll be clumsy and they'll fall all over each other)
[/quote]
Like!

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1320861463' post='2333817']
The Atheist message to the world is tolerance and love.
[/quote]
That's illogical. If there is no God then why do disabled people need to live? They should all be euthanized so as not to degrade the gene pool. And people who have low IQ or behave dangerously on the road are a threat to the gene pool. Why would it be a betrayal for a person to have sex with other partners. It is only a betrayal because in religion a man and his wife are 'one flesh'! Obviously they have separate bodies, so what are we talking about. We are talking about one spirit. The first step in humanity becoming one with God from which all things were made. Why should we show love and tolerance to the third world. Nature is thinning the population which prevents over population and only the fittest will survive. Show me one instance where tolerance and love is beneficial to a Godless world. You might say it brings peace but that will never happen. The fallen man by original sin has a nature of engaging in domination and wars. Better to do as Rkwright says and kill off all that we perceive as threats to our evolution.
Atheists can and often are moral they just can't reconcile it with atheism.

I find Mr Attenburoughs conclusion puzzling. As a naturist he should use scientific and philosophical thinking. He is doing neither, his conclusion is rash and misinformed obviously based on an ill informed view of religion.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1320861463' post='2333817']
The Atheist message to the world is tolerance and love.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that was what Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il-Sung, Pol Pot, [i]et. al[/i] were trying to get across.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1320854679' post='2333749']
okay, so this is a bit off topic, the topic is actually more about parasitic creatures who by their nature cause pain and suffering in other creatures, especially when they do so to humans...[/quote]

Obviously, this thread may go on to address other aspects of atheism and world views in general, but I'd like to focus on parasites for the moment.

In particular, I give you the cordyceps fungi. Go to youtube and search for 'zombie ants.' You'll find this:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKjBIBBAL8[/media]

You'll note that it is narrated by Sir David Attenborough, which is [i]*probably*[/i] why it was the first example to come to mind. That, and...zombie ants. No contest, really....

So, the cordyceps fungi is pretty intrinsically cruel; it takes over the insect's brain and forces it to commit suicide...particularly in a way that will help to spread the fungi to the rest of the ant colony. WHY does the world need the cordyceps fungi? Welllll, funny you should ask. They do help to keep populations in check. Get too many of one particular type of ant in the jungle, and chances are a cordyceps fungi (tailored to their species, I might add) will find them and decimate the hive. Cordyceps fungi help maintain and actively promote biodiversity in the jungle. That's good for the overall health of the jungle, though, obviously, not for the poor ant that ends up zombified.

['Zombie snails' is also an interesting youtube search.]

Somehow, no one complains when the victim of devious parasitic wasps is...cockroaches.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsSqsqJtZg[/media]
Note that the cockroach is alive throughout almost all of this; alive and powerless to resist. That initial sting makes it unable to walk away under its own power. The cockroach is led to its tomb and buried alive...with the wasp's eggs. The larvae hatch and eat the (still trapped and alive) cockroach...which, yeah, is then dead. So, an interesting twist on the 'buried alive' horror is being buried alive and slowly consumed by your enemy's spawn.

But, hey, it's just a cockroach.

But that's the point - parasites are often only effective against a particular species. If that species dies out, the parasite will, too. But...if that species TAKES OVER THE WORLD, that parasite will be around to help...cull the herd. It's like having natural predators present in an ecosystem, but often ickier.


But back to humans....

If you don't want your child to get mauled by leopards, you likely try your best to keep the child away from places where a leopard may happen upon him or her. If you don't want your child to get eye parasites, you keep them out of freshwater ponds in east Africa. [Standard advice for people traveling in third world nations, actually.]

But why are there such killer diseases (and parasites) in Africa? Humans have lived there much longer than we've inhabited most of the rest of the world, and, well...the local parasites are well adapted to affecting us. Parasites haven't just 'always been here'; you don't get eye worms from swimming in freshwater ponds in North America. We aren't the most numerous life form around, of course (I'm sure the nematodes take that prize), but we are quite successful, and it makes sense that nature would have some 'checks and balances' to keep us...in our place.

Pleasant? No, of course not. But the majority of organisms are not parasitic; that relationship is actually rather rare, considering. I don't see how you could study nature and come away with a fluffy view of 'lion laying down with the lamb' being normal. But...that's kinda the point of Christianity. Nature is fallen, and if you want the leopard and the kid to play together, you have to visit God's holy mountain.

[musturde]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1320792853' post='2333392']
the atheist would object to our explanation because the atheist would see life in this world as the ultimate good, pleasure and comfort as the ultimate goods. so if God does not provide unending non-suffering life in this world, He can't be all-good by their standards of goodness. but those things are not ultimate goods, our argument is that there is an ultimate higher good. [/quote]
This is not true. We cannot define what all atheists believe. It's hard to even define what all Christians believe with one statement and Christianity is an actual religion. Nietzsche, an atheist, wrote about the importance of suffering and how good ultimately comes from it. One can't say that all atheists believe that constant comfort is something one should seek or that suffering is always bad.

[quote] I wouldn't alter my argument all that much for an atheist, it's the same argument. we expect that there will be suffering in this world because we believe sin has corrupted nature. [/quote]
Actually, this brings up questions for believers. To what extent has nature been corrupted? In the example given by the op, it seems that this creature was made to only survive off of human suffering. Therefore, God must have made it that way. To say our sin made it that way does not convince me. Perhaps God made this creature specifically to punish the fall of man or maybe he made it possible for such an organism to be evolved into because of our sin. This doesn't make God malevolent. Perhaps the organism has another function we're unaware of. I don't think the organism itself can be evil.

[quote]anyway, I don't really understand how we're supposed to alter the argument for an atheist. this isn't just to make a theist feel better about it, this is what we believe and the essence of the argument with the atheist is simply that they don't believe in eternal goodness outside of this life, and therefore something like this would present a problem for believing in ultimate goodness at all. [/quote]
Just because they don't believe in eternal goodness outside of this life doesn't mean they're not worth arguing with. God is the creator of human reason. I believe things can be argued logically in a way that anyone can understand it.

[quote] but if there is eternal life, something like this can be meaningful; but if all life is mortal, all is meaningless. it's the simple disagreement between the atheist and the theist, and it doesn't really have to do with parasites--it has to do with whether there is life after death. [/quote]
I've enjoyed reading your views on a number of issues but I have to disagree with you here. I believe atheists are worthy of our dialogue and that proving the worth of suffering does not require one to believe in an afterlife.

[quote]
accept that there is life after death, and this is not necessarily a problem; don't accept that there is life after death, and you're not going to believe in God anyway so this doesn't really prove or disprove anything to you.
[/quote]
You have a point. I think that even if we could answer the problem of evil, one ultimately needs faith to believe in God. However, I feel like atheists are often treated as if they're choosing to be atheists for greedy reasons, simply because they don't want the responsibilities associated with believing in a God. I don't believe this is the case. If there are atheists like this, then fine, one does not need to waste his or her time arguing with these individuals. However, I feel that if even theologians like Thomas Aquinas devoted time to arguing the existence of God in a way that all people could accept it, then we shouldn't ignore this method of reasoning.