Most plants grow using photosynthesis, "a process in which they take energy from sunlight and nutrients from air and soil." Herbivores, in contrast, survive by eating plants, while carnivores survive by eating animals, and omnivores survive by eating either plants or animals or both.
But in a world governed by a universal moral law from God, where the central nervous system of animals only guarantees an incredible amount of pain and suffering is experienced with every meal, any reflection leads one to wonder why a "merciful and benevolent God" would create a world where everything is forced to feed upon everything else, just to survive.
Why, in other words, didn't God just create only biological life, in all of it's diversity, that drew all of its needed subsistence exclusively from the sun, air and soil, in much the same way the Christian believes that their God created all spiritual life that drew its salvation exclusively from the "son"?
Such a set up creates a conflict on its face, since humanity has become the only species that sees murder as both a sin and a sport, as both a crime and a necessary means of survival. And while St. Francis of Assisi thought that even the life of a flower was a gift from God, the modern Christian is quite blissfully ignorant of the fact, and quite content to remain as such, that to every other species of animal on the planet, humans are the Nazis.
Since an all powerful "God" could have clearly chosen to create a world in any way, shape, or form He so chose, one is left to wonder why He would've chosen to create a world where survival resulted in so much human and animal suffering. I mean, at the very least, he could've reduced our sensitivity to pain, or allowed for a release of pain deadening hormones to make the process of being eaten less excruciating. But noooo! In fact, some have argued that even plants may experience some degree of pain and suffering as well (see: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pain.htm).
What possible purpose could a world so predicated upon suffering serve to an all powerful God? What possible lessons could be learned that would have any relevance to either the soulless animals who are all forced to devour each other to survive, who we suppose may only be dispatched from eternity upon their demise, or the countless human souls who are all unavoidably destine to an eternity defined by the experience of either pain or pleasure?
How, more importantly, can a "morality" be constructed upon a "divine author" who alone is responsible for creating a world who's entire biodiversity depends necessarily upon the propagation of such universal misery?
If even the lowly Christian were tasked with making a world and could design no better or less painful a system of life than this, it would be right to think of such a designer as more of a monster than a moral, loving father figure, as more of serial killer than a savior. Yet Christians never doubt for a second that their God, who they insist everywhere is far superior to themselves in love, mercy, and omnipotence, has created the world - with all of the pain and misery upon which it necessarily generates and depends - for purely benevolent reasons.
They just ignore the fact that the very same things were sincerely believed by the followers of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot as well.
Comments
Post a Comment