This week, well-known atheist Alex O’Connor debated (in an interesting format) with about twenty theists (video above). The first twenty minutes was debating Alex’s thesis that “suffering makes God’s existence unlikely”.
In phrasing his contention in this manner, Alex was trying to sidestep the “Problem of Evil” (why do bad things happen to good people) which he accepted has been well traversed. Theists have a whole discipline (called ‘Theodicy’) responding to the Problem of Evil.
Alex also wanted to avoid a moral argument. He wanted to focus on the suffering of innocent animals, on the innocent deer trapped by a falling tree and slowly, painfully dying; or the pain one predatory animal inflicts on another.
This is not the atheist “gotcha” moment that Alex in this video gives the impression that it is!
Let me underscore, I enjoy and appreciate Alex O’Connor and the respectful way that he engages in discussions.
But once one accepts that there are plausible solutions to the Problem of Evil and the problem of human suffering in theism, I do not find suffering of innocent animals becomes a new way of razing theism.
Suffering is part of a moral and consistent universe. If we were to live in a different universe where I punch you in the eye and it has no ill effect on you, and the effect of my punch is the same as if I had given you a loving hug, then morality ceases. In such a different universe, where there were no suffering, every action, “good or evil”, simply always has a beneficial, positive, or at least neutral effect. Having moral options requires different outcomes for different actions; good actions, good outcomes; evil actions lead to suffering.
And in a consistent universe, a brick is solid so we can build with it, and if while building we drop the brick on our foot, then suffering ensues.
The video assumes evolution – and I am more than happy to do so. Alex would therefore need to propose an evolutionary process leading to humans (for whom he acknowledges—or at least appears to acknowledge—the merit of theistic explanations for human suffering). This would require us to envision an evolutionary timeline in which no suffering existed among all animal species, only for suffering to suddenly emerge with the evolution of humans. Such a reality is not a consistent universe, it is not a reality that would be open to scientific, reasonable research.
As a key part of his argument, Alex repeatedly and strongly suggests that God could have made animals herbivores – thereby reducing the amount of suffering. Such “reduction”, however, does not eliminate the philosophical problem he proposes. If innocent animal suffering is a problem for theism (which I am showing it isn’t, certainly no more than the Problem of Evil), then having less of such suffering would not eliminate the problem.
I am visualising individuals, astute in biological science, watching this debate. Animal predation is essential to the process of evolution. And if in our world all animals suddenly, magically (miraculously?!?!) became herbivores, the fine balance of whole ecosystems would collapse. In such a universe as Alex proposes, I posit that it is unlikely (echoing Alex’s word) for humans to evolve.
Do follow:
The Liturgy Facebook Page
The Liturgy Twitter Profile
The Liturgy Instagram
and/or sign up to a not-too-often email
