(July 21, 2012 at 1:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(July 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: You're going to have expand. I can't read your mind.
Sorry I didn't think that was complicated!
Parasites and hosts have a symbiotic relationship where both can rely on each other to some extent.
When considering human suffering as evil, you have to take the perspective that humans are more important.
Humans can't live without disease.
Humans can't live without bacteria. This isn't the same as disease, because bacteria can be benign.
If you are shisting the scope from human importance, that's fine. The more pressing matter then becomes, "Why did a benevolent God create a system that forces animals to kill and consume one another in order to ensure survival?"
Biocentric analysis of evil is even worse than anthropocentric, because the whole of biology and nature as observed on this planet has been shown to be dependent on the suffering of any given species. Humans can't survive without the manufactured slaughter of a meat source, the harvesting of crops, and the imprisonment of other animals for other things like milk or eggs.
You will have to explain why a God would require evolution in his creation, a system where suffering is inherent, where it is necessary.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
