Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
41. Dunbar preaches nonsense
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 05:59 PM
Jun 2012

Look at it this way ...

Animals display grief as well as other emotions and this leave the theist with an unanswerable dilemma - do animals believe in God?

Deal with the simplest "horn", if animals do not believe in God then that disproves Rev. Dunbar without further argument.

Now for the more twisted horn. If animals do believe then it must be by direct revelation, for this knowledge cannot be taught as animals lack the mechanisms for teaching such abstracts. However, despite this knowledge, animals still suffer the effects of evil with all the suffering implied by that. What is more they suffer the effects of natural disasters and, if the Bible is to be believed, the consequences of God's punishments of humans. This is formally known as "The Problem of Suffering" and is one of the great problems that theology has never satisfactorily answered.

Ignoring the glaring hole that the "Problem of Suffering" leaves in belief look at the consequences of animals having direct knowledge of God. If animals can receive this knowledge directly then why cannot humans? Why does God hide from humans and require from humans, alone amongst his creation, the need for faith? There is an idea that imbuing such knowledge directly into the human mind would deny us free will, but the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve had the freedom to sin despite having direct knowledge of God; equally Jonah tried to avoid the duty that God put upon him despite speaking to God directly. So direct knowledge of God does not impinge on human free will.

Of course the apologist would muster various arguments against this idea and here is one.

The apologist might say "But animals do not really suffer grief," but this is just the "No true Scotsman" fallacy writ large. Animals will suffer lassitude, depression and unreasoning outbursts of anger at the loss of a companion; they exhibit every behaviour we humans associate with grief and to deny that this is "really" grief is to deny that animals feel any emotion at all.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Do you think it's true, rug? n/t trotsky Jun 2012 #1
No. With some exceptions, no. rug Jun 2012 #2
What are these exceptions? n/t trotsky Jun 2012 #3
"Willfully Ignorant" usually means you know better. rug Jun 2012 #4
So you think it's just plain ignorance to believe that atheists are sub-human monsters... trotsky Jun 2012 #5
That question has to many assumptions to answer. rug Jun 2012 #6
It's the core issue. trotsky Jun 2012 #13
No it isn't. rug Jun 2012 #14
Not even talking about that. I asked you two specific questions that you didn't answer. trotsky Jun 2012 #16
All right, this stops at "childish, petty attempts". rug Jun 2012 #22
Great to hear you'll drop that. trotsky Jun 2012 #25
I'm dropping this discussion. rug Jun 2012 #26
Trouble is, rug, once you join in, mr blur Jun 2012 #39
Frankly, this particular subthread fell apart when he introduced the notion of sub-human monsters. rug Jun 2012 #40
Atheists have a reason to grieve EvilAL Jun 2012 #7
That's a good point. rug Jun 2012 #9
That's the way it should be EvilAL Jun 2012 #10
The argument the minister is making is creepily similar to an argument made by a DU'er here Heddi Jun 2012 #8
^^THIS^^ Goblinmonger Jun 2012 #15
Could you give us the total score at this point? cbayer Jun 2012 #20
WTF? trotsky Jun 2012 #21
Yeah, I can Goblinmonger Jun 2012 #32
1 to 1 then cbayer Jun 2012 #33
It's pretty easy to say that a generic author is right about something Goblinmonger Jun 2012 #34
Ruh oh. 1 - 3 cbayer Jun 2012 #36
Watch out, you're quote-mining rug Jun 2012 #37
Thats how I roll. cbayer Jun 2012 #38
Thanks for those. Goblinmonger Jun 2012 #42
When do you start confronting anti-atheist bigotry like you said you would? Heddi Jun 2012 #43
I have had ONE Christian ask me to explain why I am an Atheist. SoutherDem Jun 2012 #11
I've yet to meet a fellow atheist who thought that reason and virtue mr blur Jun 2012 #12
Nor have I. LeftishBrit Jun 2012 #17
Is what true - that atheists don't experience grief, or that religious people suspect them of not LeftishBrit Jun 2012 #18
The latter. Thanks for your answer. rug Jun 2012 #23
Religion aside, I think the writer mistakes the point of grief dmallind Jun 2012 #19
I don't blame the author for being enraged by this. cbayer Jun 2012 #24
even dogs grieve, ffs. unblock Jun 2012 #27
That's very true. rug Jun 2012 #29
And elephants. cbayer Jun 2012 #30
This looks to me like one of those arguments meant to demean a subgroup rurallib Jun 2012 #28
My wife died...I am an atheist...yet I still grieve...why? Uben Jun 2012 #31
Those arguments are familiar to those who know the history of hatred of Jews. dimbear Jun 2012 #35
Dunbar preaches nonsense intaglio Jun 2012 #41
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Why Are Believers Willful...»Reply #41