Is there necessary suffering?

[R_Daneel]

I am going to change the challenge, in the believers’ favor.

Usually the challenge goes like this: “substantiate that ALL sufferings have a beneficial effect, which cannot be achieved without that suffering, and where the benefit more than compensates for the suffering, and where the suffering stops precisely at the point when the greater good necomes possible”. This is the correct way to challenge the proposition that “benevolence” and “evil” can be reconciled. Obviously no one can asnwer it, and usually it is asserted that we, finite beings simply do not have the information to give an answer. Fair enough, but it does not answer the problem.

So, I will go easy on you. Show me just one particular instance of suffering, where there is a grater benefit, which greater benefit cannot be achieved without the suffering. There are a few requirements:

1. “take God’s omnipotence into account”. God cannot make logically contradictory acts, but anything else is fair game.
2. Self-inflicted pain and suffering does not count. If someone wants to offer up his own suffering to God, and has himself crucified, or engages in self-flagellation, that is his business.

I am going to refute one possible example right off the bat.

A child does not understand why does he have to go through a painful procedure at the doctor’s office. He has no idea about the benefits he gets from the suffering. But that suffering is necessary for the child to get healthy again, or to avoid an even worse illness later on. The love by the parent is not contradicted by the suffering caused by that love.

This is a frequent example, but it is totally inadequate. It does not take “omnipotence” into consideration. There is no “need” for the process of curing or preventing the illness to be painful. It is only due to our currently existing and still “primitive” technology. God could create a completely painless inoculation method, so the pain (or suffering) was due to the inadequate level of technology, there is no logical necessity that the procedure “must” be painful.

So, go ahead. Think outside the box. Come up with a scenario where there is a logically necessary suffering to achieve a greater result. I don’t know if such an example can be found. But, who knows?

 

[JohnDamian]

Any objectively necessary suffering cannot inhere in human beings; which are by definition; contingent.

 

[R_Daneel]

Any objectively necessary suffering cannot inhere in human beings; which are by definition; contingent.

Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please be more prolific with your words. When I talk about “necessary” suffering I am only talking about a “suffering, which is necessary for some results, not globally, or absolutely necessary”. Maybe you missed that aspect.

 

[Totterman]

Jesus,our Lords peace be whit You.
I don’t realy understand Your whole point,but forgive me,I am in Finland,from Finland,and all english I know is from TV and movies and by reading books. I can speak it like a native englishman,but some words are new for me. But I see Your point,and I think we should not use the word “suffer” only when we are talking about pain. It is a much wider wiew,that goes beyond pain and so forth. Lets take it like this,I am a heavy smoker,and not smoking is a kind of suffering for me. I love dogs,and when the sad day comes when the time is up for my best friend,I suffer[and get a new dog asap]wery well knowing that I will suffer when hers time come aswell. I suffer for all poor and beaten down,for all those who never heard what Jesus said[words inspired by J.Cash"Man In Black"]and I suffer when I see people beeing treated wrong as I wos in my childhood and as a teenager,I love coffe and suffer if I wont get it,and so on and so on as far as we can go. All that is suffering,not fysical pain,but pain anyway. Is it necessary? Did it has a point? Will it do me any good? Nope! I could stop smoking,and suffer,be whitout a dog and suffer,skip coffe and suffer,is it nessesary,will it make me a better person? No. Jesus Christ suffered for all our sins once and for all. We lean on that in our faith,so we do not need to suffer,because suffering wont make us better christians in no way what so ever. You see,the whole point is that Jesus did it FOR US,I hope my ansver whit all spelling-errors and so on,gave You the ansver You needed to know,pray each day,attend mass,be a good christian,love God whit all Your heart,do unto others what You want them to do to You,don’t loose faith,all is well,all will be well,we don’t have to suffer,thanks to Jesus who did it for us. And stop thinking about things like this,it wont take You nowhere. Blessings,Totterman.

 

[Mojoforyeshua]

The primary problem with the OP’s “challenge”, whom I am assuming is atheist, is that he assumes suffering and pain to be evil and inconsistent with a good God. Then he goes on to say that there is such a thing as a “common good.” Unless I have misread the post then the OP has no reason for supposing that pain or suffering is evil or “progress” or “improvement” is a real concept. Progress implies that you have something you are moving towards, a direction or destination. In the scenario where there is no ultimate standard of good, then there is no goal to press towards and therefore no progress. On that same note if there is no ultimate standard of good then there is nothing to compare an action to to say if it is good or evil. It is like saying “darkness” in a universe with no light. If the universe had no light, therefore no creatures with photosensitive eyes to perceive the light, saying “darkness” has no meaning. Or how can we call a line crooked unless we know what a straight line ought to be? Both I and C.S. Lewis (Lewis much more eloquently and intelligentl) realized that this argument against God is a world of strange contradictions; if there is evil, then there is an ultimate good and therefore a God. If there is no God, then there is no evil which renders the initial argument of “the universe is too evil to have a good God” innocuous.

I really really need to get to school but I’ll be back later to talk about the actual topic at hand, sorry I don’t mean to leave you hanging or anything not that I am particularly enthralling but I do like this discussion and I had no intention of changing topic, rest assured I will be back sometime tonight to give my (name removed by moderator)ut about the question of suffering. I may have more to say about the first paragraph as well.

Shalom, see you later!

 

[tonyrey]

Physical suffering is a necessary condition of sentient life in a physical world in which it is impossible to be sheltered from “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to”.
Mental suffering is the inevitable consequence of unfulfilled desires.

 

[tonyrey]

If there is no God, then there is no evil which renders the initial argument of “the universe is too evil to have a good God” innocuous.

Irrefutable! If everything comes from matter exists nothing matters…

 

[Sarpedon]

When I was younger, I had an anxiety disorder which took the form of scrupulosity. I was constantly terrified of Hell and therefore carefully molded by behavior so as to not transgress any moral laws. By the time I outgrew the chemically induced anxiety disorder, I had already established habits in accordance with the moral tenants of Catholicism.

By this time, I had already been able to observe how the habits I had cultivated were making my life better. The disorder gave me a powerful incentive to learn how to control my actions. By the time I outgrew the disorder, I already had a powerful skill set that I could apply to the rest of my life.

My anxiety disorder caused a massive amount of suffering for me. I was in an emotional state of tense anxiety for about a year. Nevertheless, the skills I learned because of that suffering have only made my life better in the end.

People tend to be empiricist. They rarely take a philosopher’s word on anything. People often want tangible physical evidence of things. That’s why suffering exists- as a tangible example of cause and effect. Sure, God could stop suffering from occurring. If He did that, however, people would not see any need to perfect themselves. The whole point of Catholicism is achieving perfection, and sometimes we need a tangible example of the effects of our actions to educate us on the true nature of those actions. Surely you would not object to such an empirical manner of education?

You are asking for logically necessary suffering. Logic does not dictate suffering in the abstract. Real people are illogical, however, and this lack of logic necessitates suffering as an empirical education on why they are illogical.

 

[R_Daneel]

When I was younger, I had an anxiety disorder which took the form of scrupulosity. I was constantly terrified of Hell and therefore carefully molded by behavior so as to not transgress any moral laws. By the time I outgrew the chemically induced anxiety disorder, I had already established habits in accordance with the moral tenants of Catholicism.

By this time, I had already been able to observe how the habits I had cultivated were making my life better. The disorder gave me a powerful incentive to learn how to control my actions. By the time I outgrew the disorder, I already had a powerful skill set that I could apply to the rest of my life.

My anxiety disorder caused a massive amount of suffering for me. I was in an emotional state of tense anxiety for about a year. Nevertheless, the skills I learned because of that suffering have only made my life better in the end.

A good way to start. Let’s stick with your actual example. You say that the mental anxiety made you better equipped to deal with life. That is certainly a worthy result. I would agree that the suffering was worth it.

But that is not the question right now. Was it necessary, in the sense that the same improvement could not have been achieved by either lesser suffering, or no suffering at all? There is no logical impossibility of reaching a better “mindset” without suffering. And this is where God’s omnipotence comes into the discussion.

Let’s consider an analogy. Someone is bitten by a poisonous snake. To save his life there are two methods available for the doctor: either amputate the limb or apply an antidote. Clearly, both would work. But the amputation is not necessary, if the antidote is present. There is nothing logically contradictory to have the antidote available, so the amputation is not logically necessary.

People tend to be empiricist. They rarely take a philosopher’s word on anything. People often want tangible physical evidence of things. That’s why suffering exists- as a tangible example of cause and effect. Sure, God could stop suffering from occurring. If He did that, however, people would not see any need to perfect themselves.

Yes. And God could make everyone already as “perfect” as he wanted to. The “technology” is there. To use a lesser method is not logically necessary, therefore the suffering is not needed.

The whole point of Catholicism is achieving perfection, and sometimes we need a tangible example of the effects of our actions to educate us on the true nature of those actions. Surely you would not object to such an empirical manner of education?

No, I would not - as long as there is no other, better way to achieve the same result.

Let me reiterate: I am not looking for examples, when some suffering (either physical or mental) will yield a worthy result. It is obvious that there are many examples of that. I am looking for examples, where the same result is impossible to obtain with lesser or nonexistent suffering, God’s omnipotence notwithstanding. Omnipotence here means: “to be able to do everything that can be done”. Let’s use the phrase “omnipotence is maximally advanced technology”.

 

[R_Daneel]

Physical suffering is a necessary condition of sentient life in a physical world in which it is impossible to be sheltered from “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to”.
Mental suffering is the inevitable consequence of unfulfilled desires.

Not true. Sentient life does not have to be vulnerable to physical effects. And unfulfilled desires can easily be eliminated.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

You need to know a bit about Catholic theology to appreciate this answer. The Church teaches that Adam and Eve were in a literal sense our parents. When they disobeyed God, they and their decendants were cast from Eden and encountered suffering for the first time. This happened because Catholic teaching informs us that humans have the free will to reject God despite His omnipotence. The suffering of separation from God is a necessary and inescapable result of this ancestral mistake. There are many (myself included) who at one time or another are unaware of this suffering because they are able to distract themselves. There are others, usually saints, for whom it is the most acute suffering of all. The suffering of separation from God fits your criteria, for it is a necessary condition and it does not violate God’s omnipotence. He has in His mercy given us a means of reunification through His Son, but we must be patient and faithful in order to avail ourselves of this remedy. I do not think this is too much to ask.

 

[R_Daneel]

You need to know a bit about Catholic theology to appreciate this answer. The Church teaches that Adam and Eve were in a literal sense our parents. When they disobeyed God, they and their decendants were cast from Eden and encountered suffering for the first time. This happened because Catholic teaching informs us that humans have the free will to reject God despite His omnipotence. The suffering of separation from God is a necessary and inescapable result of this ancestral mistake. There are many (myself included) who at one time or another are unaware of this suffering because they are able to distract themselves. There are others, usually saints, for whom it is the most acute suffering of all. The suffering of separation from God fits your criteria, for it is a necessary condition and it does not violate God’s omnipotence. He has in His mercy given us a means of reunification through His Son, but we must be patient and faithful in order to avail ourselves of this remedy. I do not think this is too much to ask.

First of all, I was talking about the suffering which has a good result, and which good result compensates for the suffering. You talk about a different concept where suffering is the result of some action and not a precondition to achieve some greater good. I could and maybe should have pointed this out - explicitly, though I think it should have been obvious from the OP.

Nevertheless, let me reflect on what you said. Your idea is that suffering is the unavoidable result of the original sin. However, the original sin was not unavoidable, it was not a logical necessity. So this suffering is not necessary. But this is not what I am interested in. (By the way it is not true that free will logically leads to suffering, rather it logically leads to the possibility of suffering.)

Let’s use the usual exercise room adage: “No pain, no gain”. That is what I am asking about. Is it possible to decrease or avoid the “pain”, and still reap the benefits of the “gain”. And I am looking for some concrete example.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

First of all, I was talking about the suffering which has a good result, and which good result compensates for the suffering. You talk about a different concept where suffering is the result of some action and not a precondition to achieve some greater good. I could and maybe should have pointed this out - explicitly, though I think it should have been obvious from the OP.

I apologize, I did not realize that you wanted a example of suffering that was not caused but rather was a necessary means to a better end. The problem is that I don’t think you can find a form of suffering that does not have preconditions. The fall of man is the precondition for ALL of our suffering, is it not? Can you climb out of a hole that doesn’t exist?

Nevertheless, let me reflect on what you said. Your idea is that suffering is the unavoidable result of the original sin. However, the original sin was not unavoidable, it was not a logical necessity. So this suffering is not necessary.

When you say it was not a “logical necessity” I hear “it was not predestined”. If so I said as much when I mentioned that our first parents had free will. Unfortunately we are getting into the problem of preconditions again. Once the fall happened (precondition) and we were punished (precondition) the suffering of divine separation became a necessity. But I’m not allowed to postulate preconditions (sorry).

Let’s use the usual exercise room adage: “No pain, no gain”. That is what I am asking about. Is it possible to decrease or avoid the “pain”, and still reap the benefits of the “gain”. And I am looking for some concrete example.

Now that I understand what you are looking for, I think I can find an example and stick to my original paradigm. Imagine the life of St. Paul. He starts out a Pharisee, opposes the Christians, kills and imprisons some of them, and is eventually knocked off his feet by Christ. He then goes through an agonizing period of guilt and soul searching. He joins the apostles in their mission. He subjects himself to torments, deprivations, near death experiences, imprisonments, floggings, and ends up getting martyred. Now consider the life of Brother Andre, soon to be canonized. He lives in modern Montreal, raises money for a church, works as a porter, cures a whole bunch of people, and dies in relative peace. Both enter the beatific vision, but one suffers far more mental and physical pain than the other. Does it not seem that Andre went through less pain for the same gain?

 

[R_Daneel]

I apologize, I did not realize that you wanted a example of suffering that was not caused but rather was a necessary means to a better end. The problem is that I don’t think you can find a form of suffering that does not have preconditions. The fall of man is the precondition for ALL of our suffering, is it not?

Well, I am sure you realize that the original sin is not convincing for an atheist. Of course I do agree that all sufferings must logically have a precondition, but that is not the point right now.

When you say it was not a “logical necessity” I hear “it was not predestined”. If so I said as much when I mentioned that our first parents had free will. Unfortunately we are getting into the problem of preconditions again. Once the fall happened (precondition) and we were punished (precondition) the suffering of divine separation became a necessity. But I’m not allowed to postulate preconditions (sorry).

The preconditions exist, no question about that. But they are not relevant for the “necessary means”.

Now that I understand what you are looking for, I think I can find an example and stick to my original paradigm. Imagine the life of St. Paul. He starts out a Pharisee, opposes the Christians, kills and imprisons some of them, and is eventually knocked off his feet by Christ. He then goes through an agonizing period of guilt and soul searching. He joins the apostles in their mission. He subjects himself to torments, deprivations, near death experiences, imprisonments, floggings, and ends up getting martyred. Now consider the life of Brother Andre, soon to be canonized. He lives in modern Montreal, raises money for a church, works as a porter, cures a whole bunch of people, and dies in relative peace. Both enter the beatific vision, but one suffers far more mental and physical pain than the other. Does it not seem that Andre went through less pain for the same gain?

Now we are getting somewhere. Yes, if one believes the Bible, then there is a huge difference - and thus Paul’s suffering was excessive, and not necessary. Of course you realize that all that “beatific vision” stuff is immaterial for an atheist. I am looking for something that can be objectively evaluated, like in the example of a snake-bite. Some example, when the suffering leads to a greater gain, and suffering cannot be eliminated, even if God’s omnipotence is taken into account. If it cannot be lessened, or of it can be lessened, but not eliminated, then you have an example of “necessary suffering”. And that is my question. Let’s stay with only one precondition: “God is omnipotent”. Let’s leave the Biblical and heavenly things out. To stay “down to Earth” is the way to go.

 

[tonyrey]

Physical suffering is a necessary condition of sentient life in a physical world in which it is impossible to be sheltered from “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to”.
Mental suffering is the inevitable consequence of unfulfilled desires.

Can you produce a blueprint of a world in which sentient life is invulnerable to physical effects? If so please describe it and explain how all accidents are prevented.
And unfulfilled desires can easily be eliminated.
How would you prove that assertion? Do you have absolute control of yourself?

 

[Sarpedon]

But that is not the question right now. Was it necessary, in the sense that the same improvement could not have been achieved by either lesser suffering, or no suffering at all? There is no logical impossibility of reaching a better “mindset” without suffering. And this is where God’s omnipotence comes into the discussion.

God has no knowledge of nonexistent actions. God can’t know exactly how I will react to things. Tangible suffering seems to be the most effective way of making a point about cause and effect in our actions and dispositions- it certainly worked for me.

It’s true that logically I could have developed the same habits without suffering, but this logical possibility is rooted in my free will. How would you expect God to be able to actualize possibilities that lie outside of his control?

Yes. And God could make everyone already as “perfect” as he wanted to. The “technology” is there. To use a lesser method is not logically necessary, therefore the suffering is not needed.

No, because God does not have control over our own minds. If human beings were perfectly logical, we would not need suffering. We are free and not perfectly logical, however, so God uses suffering as the most effective method to keep us on track.

No, I would not - as long as there is no other, better way to achieve the same result.

What superior method of education would you propose than empirical cause and effect?

Human beings have free will. God has no control over our free will. It is in our own best interest to be a certain way, and God therefore wants that for us. However, we do not always choose what is best for us, so God uses obvious and simple cause and effect as a tangible example of why and how our actions matter. There is not a logical link between this action of God and the response of humans- they are really two distinct things. God’s action can’t logically compel human response. God has no better logical alternative than suffering. What better method of education would you want other than your own empiricism?

 

[R_Daneel]

God has no knowledge of nonexistent actions. God can’t know exactly how I will react to things. Tangible suffering seems to be the most effective way of making a point about cause and effect in our actions and dispositions- it certainly worked for me.

It’s true that logically I could have developed the same habits without suffering, but this logical possibility is rooted in my free will. How would you expect God to be able to actualize possibilities that lie outside of his control?

No, because God does not have control over our own minds. If human beings were perfectly logical, we would not need suffering. We are free and not perfectly logical, however, so God uses suffering as the most effective method to keep us on track.

What superior method of education would you propose than empirical cause and effect?

Human beings have free will. God has no control over our free will. It is in our own best interest to be a certain way, and God therefore wants that for us. However, we do not always choose what is best for us, so God uses obvious and simple cause and effect as a tangible example of why and how our actions matter. There is not a logical link between this action of God and the response of humans- they are really two distinct things. God’s action can’t logically compel human response. God has no better logical alternative than suffering. What better method of education would you want other than your own empiricism?

You are on the wrong track. Free will is not a “Jolly Joker” to be used in every scenario. Suppose I had the power to “implant” all my knowledge of mathematics and languages into your brain. You would change somewhat, for sure, but basically you would be the same, just have some extra knowledge. Or, taking another example, I am a rather lazy person. God could “imbue” me with more sense of “duty”. That would be an improvement supposedly. The trick is to “monkey around” with our mind to make better humans out of us. That would not affect free will whatsoever. Sure, we would change, so what? We do change all the time. By the time you have finished to read this, you are different from what you have been before you started to read.

 

[Sarpedon]

You are on the wrong track. Free will is not a “Jolly Joker” to be used in every scenario. Suppose I had the power to “implant” all my knowledge of mathematics and languages into your brain. You would change somewhat, for sure, but basically you would be the same, just have some extra knowledge. Or, taking another example, I am a rather lazy person. God could “imbue” me with more sense of “duty”. That would be an improvement supposedly. The trick is to “monkey around” with our mind to make better humans out of us. That would not affect free will whatsoever. Sure, we would change, so what? We do change all the time. By the time you have finished to read this, you are different from what you have been before you started to read.

Exactly. And that is why God makes us suffer. He is monkeying around with our brains. It certainly worked for me, and I thank Him for that.

 

[R_Daneel]

Exactly. And that is why God makes us suffer. He is monkeying around with our brains. It certainly worked for me, and I thank Him for that.

But you say that God would have been unable to do that without using such a crude method as the suffering?

 

[Sarpedon]

But you say that God would have been unable to do that without using such a crude method as the suffering?

Yes.

You object to suffering because you think God could use a better method. What better method is there? What else teaches you to look outside of yourself?

In one sense, you cannot win this argument in a positive way. For you to defeat the benevolence of God, you would have to show that there is a positively better way than suffering to accomplish the stated goals. It is practically impossible for you to demonstrate this, because you simply cannot analyze data on that scale.

However, in a more general, less syllogistic way, we can discuss whether or not any other options seem to be a better alternative. What alternate method of education would you propose? Having seen the beneficial effects of suffering in my own life, I can conclude that suffering as a method worked in my case. What other way do you propose to result in the same effect in me?