= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Solvent comments on An argument that animals don't really suffer - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (86)
I've just glanced at these, I'll read them properly in a second.
My preliminary concern about those two rebuttals is that they seem to be arguing based on the punchline. I think it's obvious that whether or not animals feel pain is pretty irrelevant to arguments about God's existence, personally. So it icks me that both the posts mention this before mentioning actual factual arguments.
Fair enough. I will note that, although tainted in terms of pure philosophy, refutations of Craig that start at his punchline may well be quite reasonable given Craig's long history of always starting with the bottom line.
You stated a concern with the neuroscience, which Myers addresses pretty well.
I don't think that I agree. Jumping to the bottom line is always a problem, especially cases like this where the debate doesn't even really affect any God-existing debates.
Theism and atheism can both easily explain animals suffering and not suffering. I don't think that Craig even considers this to be a particularly strong argument in favor of Christianity. Both of those posts, particularly the second, used their (correct) disputation of the neuroscience as an argument against God. That's a sign of bad reasoning.
Like, for instance, the atheism.about.com page says Craig is "lying" about the prefrontal cortex thing, when it's far more likely he's mistaken.
I don't like either of those blog posts, even though they both raise a correct point.
Not "mistaken", but "doesn't care". Craig is starting with the bottom line; the presumption that he is not is useful philosophical hygiene when attempting a refutation, but is factually incorrect.
If you can get to the conclusion that God exists regardless of the facts, then of course, you will be indifferent to the facts. That is, I think, the big danger in reasoning to a foregone conclusion.