Question #2: A Universe With Compassion

Posted in Questions, Quickies on  | 1 minute | 23 Comments →

Is a universe with compassion better than a universe without compassion? Why or why not? As with yesterday’s question, I’m looking for direct, “yes” or “no” answers, followed by explanation if necessary.


23 comments

  1. Karl Grant

     says...

    Yes, a universe with compassion better than a universe without compassion. A universe without compassion is a universe without suffering, trials and hardships. A universe without any challenges, no obstacles to overcome. Such a world would be static and unchanging, you wouldn’t be living in such a universe, you would simply be existing.

  2. Depends on what you mean by better. There is no objective answer to this question, but I say yes. I predict you are now going to slam us atheists with, “well then, aren’t you glad suffering exists?” Well, maybe not glad, but something along the lines of how suffering has a legitimate purpose.

  3. Ronin

     says...

    cl,

    You asked:

    Is a universe with compassion better than a universe without compassion? Why or why not?

    I would say, “A universe with compassion would be better than one without compassion.”

    However, does there have to be compassion at all? That is, does suffering need to exist so we can understand what compassion is? Couldn’t God just do away with suffering and with us learning compassion? Not, if we have to understand compassion and appreciate certain aspects about relationships.

  4. cl

     says...

    Ha! I forgot to answer my own question. Yes, I think a universe with compassion is better. Also, I can see how an agent like God might think a universe with compassion is better.

    Karl Grant,

    A universe without compassion is a universe without suffering, trials and hardships. A universe without any challenges, no obstacles to overcome.

    I tend to agree to the first sentence, but I’m not so sure of the second. Need challenges and obstacles necessarily entail suffering? If “suffering” necessarily means psychophysical pain or discomfort, I’d disagree with you, but I think we can have challenges and obstacles to overcome without that type of suffering. For example, one could undertake the challenge of getting 1000 followers on their favorite social media network, or something like that.

    ThinkingEmotions,

    I predict you are now going to slam us atheists with, “well then, aren’t you glad suffering exists?”

    Actually, no. Now I’m going to slam you with, “What the hell TE, I thought you told me you were no longer an atheist a while back?”

    ;)

    Ronin,

    Couldn’t God just do away with suffering and with us learning compassion?

    I’d say yes, but what if God values a universe with compassion over a universe without it? Doesn’t that seem to be yet another adequate response to the skeptic WRT the POE? Not that I expect any answer to ever suffice for the die-hard skeptic, just sayin’.

  5. dale

     says...

    YES.

    In that there is no human life that is, has, or will be without suffering, we owe it to the next to do our part in order that the suffering of others may be minimized. If there was more compassion, the world would be a better place, even if only in a small way.

  6. “Are empathy and compassion logically possible without experiencing suffering?”

    Hey, good question! Good for you!

    Since empathy is an emotional identification with others, my answer is no on that count.

    Compassion is a little trickier. On the feeling side, it seems like compassion and empathy are more or less synonymous. On the other hand, an act of compassion can be performed for reasons of pure self interest, so I guess it depends on what you meant.

    Good show! :)

  7. This question is as unclear as the previous one. Are we to assume that these worlds are in all other ways identical? If so, this necessarily means that the answer to the previous question is “yes” for both counts.

    You answered “no” for both counts (although you are operating under a faulty conception of logical possibility), so this question really means: Is a world with suffering and compassion preferable to a world without suffering and without compassion?

  8. cl

     says...

    Matt DeStefano,

    This question is as unclear as the previous one.

    Yet, you’re the only one really having trouble out of plenty answers. I guess you’re just way more advanced than us?

  9. Whoops! My answer number six was for the previous question. My bad! :(

    As for this question, I guess I’d have to say a universe is better off with compassion than without, IF that universe is one that requires compassion to make it ‘better’. In the kind of ‘perfect’ universe we might imagine if we tried, where there’s no suffering and everybody’s happy all the time, compassion might be moot. Best I can do.

  10. cl

     says...

    Matt DeStefano,

    In fact, never mind. I can’t detachedly engage you until previous issues (DBT01 fiasco, “anti-science” claim) are resolved. If we can cross that bridge, great, if not, I probably won’t respond to too many of your comments from here on out.

  11. Yet, you’re the only one really having trouble out of plenty answers. I guess you’re just way more advanced than us?

    Half a dozen people isn’t exactly the greatest sample size. If you yourself misunderstood what your first question is really asking, odds are that others did as well.

    In fact, never mind. I can’t detachedly engage you until previous issues (DBT01 fiasco, “anti-science” claim) are resolved. If we can cross that bridge, great, if not, I probably won’t respond to too many of your comments from here on out.

    The “DBT01 fiasco” was never about you, personally, but about my own disinterest in presiding over a debate where we took seriously the proposal that Genesis was literally true and/or biological evolution didn’t happen.

    I don’t remember the context of the “anti-science” claim, but it probably had to do with posts like “Science, it Works!” :

    Atheists and skeptics—the faithful congregation of the First Church of Scientism—can often be found singing praises to their god, but we rarely hear them tell the whole story. The faithful are quick to chant, “science the best method we have of finding the truth,” but why don’t they also chant, “science is the leading cause of our destruction?”

    The confusion/obfuscation between methodology and what human beings do with the fruits of that methodology is eerily reminiscent of the anti-science YEC crowd.

  12. cl,

    Haha, well, I guess that’s just a bunch of namby-pamby semantics. If your definition of atheist is one that does not have a belief in God, then yeah, I am an atheist. I don’t hold any active belief in a God. However, I also don’t claim to know that one doesn’t exist, so really, I’m a very even agnostic. You could say I’m trying to disassociate myself from atheism, though.

  13. Karl Grant

     says...

    Cl,

    I was thinking more along the lines of would we have developed biology, genetics, biochemistry to the point they are now if we didn’t get sick all the time? Technology only advances for so long as there is a need for it. Still, I agree with your point.

  14. cl

     says...

    Matt DeStefano,

    If you yourself misunderstood what your first question is really asking, odds are that others did as well.

    *I* didn’t misunderstand what I was asking. You did.

    The “DBT01 fiasco” was never about you, personally, but about my own disinterest in presiding over a debate where we took seriously the proposal that Genesis was literally true and/or biological evolution didn’t happen.

    I know right? Because you’re just too intellectually superior for those absurd ideas you don’t agree with, right? This is why I’m annoyed to the ceiling with it all. Did I say it was ever about me? No. Did I say a single word about biological evolution didn’t happen? No. Take off your “casualty of the culture wars,” false dichotomy glasses and try to think critically here, like Daniel did. Please address the issues raised in this post, and then either say something like, “Yeah, I guess I did get sorta carried away,” or, “I still think you’re wrong cl, and here’s why.”

    The confusion/obfuscation between methodology and what human beings do with the fruits of that methodology is eerily reminiscent of the anti-science YEC crowd.

    You don’t understand what you’re talking about. You conflate criticism of scientism—a non-scientific concept—with an “anti-science” position, and that suggests something is seriously amiss with the way you process information.

  15. cl

     says...

    ThinkingEmotions,

    Thanks for clarifying.

    You could say I’m trying to disassociate myself from atheism, though.

    Why would you do that?

  16. On the main attraction here, I find myself unable to really give a clear answer to the question of whether a universe with compassion better than a universe without compassion.

    I think, all else being equal, compassion is a virtuous property, being a quality that both benefits the person who holds it pragmatically (being an avenue toward a happier life) and good for motivating people to reduce the suffering of others. Thus, I would prefer that compassion existed rather than not.

    However, compassion seems to be a means to an end, ie it exists only if suffering exists, as we established in the previous question. Thus, I have to ask the real question — “Is the suffering worth it?”

    I think this is where I tap out — I don’t know. I don’t know how much suffering is needed to maintain the level of compassion I like, and it feels weird introducing or allowing suffering just to give people the opportunity to practice compassion. To me it feels contrived, like “Here, I’m going to punch Timmy so you can sympathize with him and help him.”

    It’s not very direct, I think, but not all questions are capable of having direct answers that adequately explain your position. Does that make sense?

  17. Peter, I understand your question, and in fact have written extensively examining another level to that question “is the suffering worth it?” Glad to see somebody recognizes the fallacy.

  18. Compassion compels me not to be the one who personally solves the problem of suffering, but just to ensure that the problem is fixed. Thus, if there’s a God who can get rid of suffering with literally no work at all, yet chooses not to, I wonder what is going on.

    Consider a hypothetical story of the medical researcher who discovers a cure to cancer, but then destroys it and all his research so other people can have a chance at finding the cure themselves. These things, while driven by compassion, are just means to an end. Compassion is important — very important — but only in so far as it is actually reducing suffering.

  19. cl

     says...

    Peter,

    It’s not very direct, I think, but not all questions are capable of having direct answers that adequately explain your position. Does that make sense?

    No, they are. For example, you wrote,

    …all else being equal, compassion is a virtuous property, being a quality that both benefits the person who holds it pragmatically (being an avenue toward a happier life) and good for motivating people to reduce the suffering of others. Thus, I would prefer that compassion existed rather than not.

    That was close to a direct answer. IOW, yes, you would prefer a universe with compassion if the suffering was “worth it” (to you). You might as well just said “yes.”

    To me it feels contrived, like “Here, I’m going to punch Timmy so you can sympathize with him and help him.”

    This is a disanalogy if you have the God of the Bible in mind.

  20. This is a disanalogy if you have the God of the Bible in mind.

    Glad to hear. But if your theodicy is that suffering exists specifically so compassion can exist and for no other reason, you’ll have to explain where the analogy breaks down.

    Anyways, you have my answers and I look forward to seeing where you go with this.

  21. *I* didn’t misunderstand what I was asking. You did.

    Your comments in the “Q1” thread show that you didn’t understand what “logical possibility” actually entailed (your equivocation of “logically contradictory” and “false”).

    I know right? Because you’re just too intellectually superior for those absurd ideas you don’t agree with, right?

    If I had a penny for every time I saw you call the opposition “arrogant”, “superior” or some such nonsense. I engage people that I disagree with quite frequently, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have to set priorities about issues which I do and do not have interest in discussing.

  22. Why would you do that?

    I’m guessing it’s for the same reasons you disassociate yourself from Christianity. Bad PR, assumptions, etc.

    Peter,

    Compassion compels me not to be the one who personally solves the problem of suffering, but just to ensure that the problem is fixed. Thus, if there’s a God who can get rid of suffering with literally no work at all, yet chooses not to, I wonder what is going on.

    I can’t see how cl would deny this. Normally he opts for the “suffering isn’t God’s fault” route, but that doesn’t even apply here. God’s empathy and compassion are at stake here, and E/C applies even in cases where one had nothing to do with the suffering. Hell, I say it even applies in cases of self-inflicted suffering, such as the case of humanity per cl’s beliefs.

  23. cl

     says...

    I see Matt DeStefano is back with more vapidity:

    Your comments in the “Q1″ thread show that you didn’t understand what “logical possibility” actually entailed (your equivocation of “logically contradictory” and “false”).

    Nice naked assertion, not unlike your claim that I was “anti-science.” I guess we’re supposed to believe this because Matt DeStefano says so? I suppose there’s no possibility that you misunderstood something? C’mon man, put up or shut up. EXPLAIN your case, don’t simply ASSERT it.

    If I had a penny for every time I saw you call the opposition “arrogant”, “superior” or some such nonsense.

    So what if you did? Have I ever denied or condemned calling out arrogance?

    I engage people that I disagree with quite frequently, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have to set priorities about issues which I do and do not have interest in discussing.

    That’s not the point here, and I see that you’re still avoiding the questions I’ve asked (WRT DBT01). Pretty sad, Matt, it’s really pretty sad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *