Alex O'Connor's Contradiction (On Suffering)

Are you one of those crazy people who just love sitting down and watching a 3 hour debate on some theological discussion, or in the case of Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson (with his word salads) - a full 8 hours? Well, I am. From the philosophical debates about the existence of God and the problem of evil, I see that there has been a change of the guard since I was a teen and the level of public discussion has definitely increased in complexity and also sincerity. There have been many great debates - Sam Harris v Jordan Peterson, William Lane Craig v Sam Harris, Trent Horn v Alex O'Connor etc. Trent Horn is definitely a significant force on the theist side and Alex O'Connor on the atheist side. Both are improving on or at least articulating old arguments in new ways that I find intriguing. For example, Trent is improving on the Kalam Cosmological argument (an infinite materialistic past is impossible), and Alex is giving credit where due - that human suffering isn't so much of an issue due to its allowance of higher order values, but he instead focuses on animal suffering (more on this later). I am not so convinced Alex is the "non-resistant, non-believer" he claims to be. 

Alex has a fantastic accent, sharp wit, and depending on the interview, he has a charming and genuine feel about his discussions. He purports to be a "non-resistant, non-believer" which gives the impression he is very open to believing in God. He even stated in one interview that the main idea that is keeping him from believing in God is the problem of unnecessary animal suffering. While holding this in mind, I do find it suspicious that he finds himself debating frequently against the resurrection of Jesus, the divine command for the Canaanite "genocide", and whether Jesus even claimed to be God. For someone who is non-resistant and has only one mentioned reason for not believing in God, he certainly is very actively opposing Him. There might be more to his story than he lets on. Alex seems to rely on a rather literalistic approach to what I call "lemon picking" which throws a lot of Christians off in debate. Lemon picking is a way of deliberately missing a point and looking at the negative. For example, many Christians use Galatians 3:28 to end slavery - "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". Alex doesn't believe we can use this passage because it would mean denying the literal existence of male and female. Alex clearly misunderstands the significance of this passage - that slaves and non slaves are equal in the eyes of God. Many of the reasons for slavery throughout history is that slaves are seen as worth less than free people. Galatians alternatively claims otherwise.  

This leads me to the main topic of this blog post... Alex's contradiction. 

Alex's main gripe is that he can't understand how a good God could allow unnecessary animal suffering. This is a fair point and shows that Alex has some keen sense of morals. It is a significant Biblical idea that we as imago dei are meant to have dominion and tend God's creations from early times. This means caring for animals is a deep God-given moral compass He has given us. I am glad Alex is using it. Alex likes to weaponize it in his debates. The Knechtles unfortunately appeared to have a rough time chatting with Alex in this short half-hour discussion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbtajMlNcnw&t=7s. In it at 1:25 Alex says to Cliff that if Alex pushed a button turning Cliff into a random wild animal, Cliff would kill himself immediately because of how miserable his life would be. Essentially, Alex is claiming that there is no value in living the life of an animal. 

Is Alex consistent with this proposition? Let's find out. In a debate with a rather worthy opponent - Catholic apologist Trent Horn, Horn pressed Alex on his rhetoric around this issue. He posited to Alex to imagine that all humanity left earth to colonise another planet. Alex has the opportunity to wipe out all nature on earth after we leave with the pressing of a button. Alex essentially gets his wish. He can end all unnecessary suffering. Alex responded basically that he didn't think he would push the button but would rather choose a button that reduced suffering. He provided no metric for deciding at what point is too much suffering - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PF1JgXOKDQ. Trent clearly drives this point home and moves onto why Alex cannot find that metric. Alex's utilitarianism gets in the way. 

Although Alex's concerns weren't really sufficient for determining how much suffering is too much, he did raise an interesting analogy about a deer being caught under a log and starving to death, even without knowledge by humans of this ever happening. This situation of suffering seems pointless to us. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I think there are possible areas that could be explored further regarding where justified suffering could be found within the experience of animals.

First, at a silly level, we might consider us living life without pain receptors in order to minimise suffering (much like zombies or lepers). Clearly, this would be an unpleasant experience. The feeling of a hard day's work is a genuinely good feeling even if I had risked injuring myself doing so (or I had to plan my day so that I wasn't carelessly smashing into everything). This seems like a frightful dream to consider the feeling of having no pain receptors. 

Moving to another level, it is often said that suffering is necessary for higher order goods such as love, kindness, mercy, and compassion. I emphasise the "necessary". Jesus said that there is no greater love than one who lays down his life for his friends (John 15:13). If God wants to express Himself (as Creator) as the greatest expression of good, then this may be why God allowed/caused evil to enter the world in the first place - so that the greatest expressions of love could become a potential reality. God expressed this through His Son Jesus Christ on the cross. There is a certain beauty with higher order goods that you do not get without suffering. I am glad that Alex acknowledges this in multiple interviews. However, one could imagine that suffering might be reduced so much that all unnecessary suffering ceases to exist and therefore maximising the good ratio. Though, I am not sure that this is possible.

If we wanted to witness the "greatest love" of someone giving their life for a friend, I suppose we could minimise suffering so that only one person needed to experience this, almost like a single exemplar of suffering for us all to observe and feel pity for. Maybe, there is an exemplar "murder" story we all "know" about. Although this scenario allows us to maybe understand or empathise to a small degree with the exemplar/s of suffering for each scenario, there feels like a certain travesty and arbitrariness about it that is difficult to explain. I would argue that the exemplars alone are not enough to qualify as producing that "higher good" within us. Much like merely seeing someone garden and consequently getting a sore back and limbs is not enough for us to enjoy the relief of putting their feet up and resting after the fact. Having the ability to participate or the potential to participate in a higher good holds its own value. It must follow that if we have this potential to experience a higher good then we must also have the potential to experience suffering.

The very existence of suffering just being around the corner (as horrifying as it may be at times) provides within us a feeling of a need to band together and to help each other that in itself is valuable. We don't know when suffering will impact us, but through compassion, mercy, and love, we can experience pleasure of being in unity with others in the face of  real potential of suffering. This is infinitely more valuable than minimising suffering to a mere exemplar and addresses the real difficulty of deciding what unnecessary suffering actually is. Minimising suffering doesn't produce a ratio of more good.

If this idea can work for people, then why could this not work for animals too? Alex frequently uses the deer being eaten by a lion as an example of unnecessary designed suffering in nature. I cannot speak as completely understanding (if at all) what the life of a deer may be. For a start, as many philosophers claim, there is a certain extra level of suffering a human can experience than an animal. An animal might experience suffering, but not the despairing self-awareness kind of suffering that true consciousness brings. They might feel pain, but not necessarily think, "I am in existential pain, and this is unfair". Animals don't have the ability to suffer as much as people, or at least they experience a different kind of pain to us. 

I wonder if a similar concept of the value of life and the real potential of suffering could be applied with deer as with people. Even though being hunted down and eaten by a lion is truly terrifying, could it be valuable for a deer to experience the safety of a herd instinct or comradery, even in the face of real dangers? A lion likewise, experiencing its own unique version of the herd instinct as they hunt together? These positive experiences of animal behaviour may be worth the suffering involved. This is the reason why when we step back, it would be difficult to push the button that exterminates all non-human life on a planet because there is something inherently valuable about nature and its own experiences. Many ultimate Sci fi movie villains attempt minimising suffering through extermination... we all know this is wrong and is actually destroying all that is good with it.

If animals may garnish some form of good through the real risk of wide spread suffering as people do, people can also experience higher order goods from animal suffering. Many people such as the SPCA here in New Zealand exist so that they can exercise a higher order good of caring for at risk animals. They cannot reach and save every animal from every situation, but the very knowledge that suffering is happening outside of their perceived control motivates them to creatively act to minimise "unnecessary" suffering. In a way that makes the unnecessary suffering a necessary part of motivating the greater good of SPCA's mission. Without the sense of a natural world run by natural laws where real risks and the potential of suffering exists, we can never experience these higher order goods.

This argument can be placed into a polly syllogism:

1. If God embodies the highest form of goodness, then His nature necessitates self-expression through creation.
2. In creating the world, God actualised the potential for widespread animal suffering as a means to manifest essential goods.
3. The existence of widespread animal suffering is necessary for cultivating higher-order virtues in humanity, such as compassion, mercy, and concern.
4. Additionally, this suffering plays a role in fostering lower-order goods in animals, such as the herd instinct, which contributes to survival and social cohesion.
5. Therefore, the actualization of widespread animal suffering within creation is justified as a means of producing both higher and lower-order goods.

In the end, it is difficult to separate the necessity of suffering from higher and lower order goods. In Scripture, God went into a long monologue with Job challenging Job to understand his own limitations of insight. Job was humbled by this monologue. Ultimately, we cannot see all the necessities of any single event, but because God is good, we can trust that He has a greater plan for good that sometimes only He is aware of. This is infinitely more reassuring than the purposelessness of an atheistic view on suffering. We can speculate, but ultimately it is His prerogative to run this universe as He sees fit.