= 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 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.