Necessary suffering? Example?

[revert_jen]

Aha! What that would mean is that there is no “necessary suffering”, and as such no “greater good defense” when it comes to the problem of evil. But, of course ONE example of “logically necessary suffering” would keep the defense alive… let’s see if someone can come up with one.

I’m not sure I agree with your premises, but if I understand what you are looking for, here is the one I was taught, as far as I remember it.

In order for humans to be worth anything, we have to have free will. WIthout free will, we are just puppets. If we have free will, it really has to be free, in the sense that the results of our actions, good or bad, have their natural consequences. If we can do bad things and nothing bad happens (to us or anyone else), then how do we understand that what we have done is bad? And in any case, it makes our will unfree to the extent that we cannot will the bad effects naturally consequent on our bad actions.

Of course, this means that people will suffer. Because all people can choose their actions, some people will choose some that hurt others. Thus suffering is logically necessary because of the greater good of our not being puppets.

At least that is how I remember it.

–Jen

 

[mymamamary]

I did NOT change any rules. In th OP I was VERY explicitly asking for an example of “logically necessary” suffering. Something that cannot be avoided (again, God’s omnipotence notwithstanding) if that “greater good” needs to be reached.

The pains of childbirth are nessescary and cannot be avoided, unless of course you adminster a drug which is dangerous…

 

[mymamamary]

I think you are grasping at straws here Trurl. Its sounds like you believe that if God could eliminate all suffering that he should. As though suffering in and of itself is evil. God allows humans to both choose evil and for us to suffer.

The existance of evil is due to the fact that God has given us the gift of free will. The gift of free will means that we, as humans, have a choice to reject love and become self seeking. We can choose to do evil. God does not wish evil for us, but gives us the right to choose.

Suffering comes to humans as a result of the human’s race acceptance of evil. We opened a big can of worms when we started to choose our own ways and rejecting God ways. Thus now, even the most innocent end up sharing in the suffering of mankind (Jesus, the unborn, children, etc). God COULD stop this suffering if he chose to, but he doesn’t. He allows our free will to playout in most circumstances to their final result. Thus we can see that the evil of physically abusing a child has consequences. The child suffers greatly. If God was to step in and miraculous prevent the child from ALL suffering would abuse still be seen as wrong? Who is hurt by it? Not the child, not the abuser, no one.

Excellent answer!!

The existance of evil in the world is obvious. Suffering is a result of our choice of evil. Suffering, however, is not evil itself. Suffering is often times a blessing. It helps the drug addict seek recovery, it helps me learn compassion and understanding, it helps unite us to Christ. Personally, I don’t know where I would be without suffering. I doubt I would have ever grown out of my selfish habits.

 

[Waiting]

The so-called greater good defense for the “problem of evil” is based upon the assumption that there is a “greater good” result, which cannot be reached (despite God’s omnipotence) without some “necessary suffering”. (There are some additional assumptions, which we can disregard for the time being.)

Is there an example of such “greater good”, which cannot be achieved without some “logically necessary suffering”? I tried to find an example, but failed. Please concentrate on a logical sequence, where the suffering is a logical pre-requiste - meaning that without the suffering the greater good cannot achieved.

The greatest good ever to be achieved came from necessary suffering – the Crucifixion. Please do not say that Christ’s suffering was not “logically” necessary. Of course it was. Otherwise God would not have sent His dearly-beloved Son to undergo that suffering. Granted, you and I might not reason to it being it logical, but God did. Can we really question whether the Crucifixion was logically necessary suffering if God, the Father, determined that it was?

 

[Trurl]

One cannot love without having the choice to not love.

Which “love” are you talking about? But of course love is totally irrelevant to the question at hand.

I think you are grasping at straws here Trurl.

I am ASKING for examples, not arguing about anything.

Its sounds like you believe that if God could eliminate all suffering that he should.

Only the “unnecessary” evil. Benevolence cannot be reconciled with “gratuitous” or “unnecessary” suffering. That is why I am asking for even ONE example of “logically necessary” suffering. No results so far.

Suffering comes to humans as a result of the human’s race acceptance of evil.

Not true. And not relevant.

In order for humans to be worth anything, we have to have free will.

This is the so-called “free will defense”, which is totally different. Here the “evil” is the (illogical) consequence, NOT the logical prerequisite. Also the existence of “free will” does not lead logically to the existence of (moral) evil, only to the possibility of it. The “free will defense” (which is not the topic here!) does not explain the “natural evils”.

The pains of childbirth are nessescary and cannot be avoided, unless of course you adminster a drug which is dangerous…

If there is an “unless” then it is not necessary.

Can we really question whether the Crucifixion was logically necessary suffering if God, the Father, determined that it was?

Yes we can. To say that God was unable to pardon us without performing a self-sacrifice is the pinnacle of irrationalty.

 

[Lochias]

I see your problem now. We are not talking about logical conclusions, rather logical prerequisites - which cannot be lessened without losing the good outcome! Maybe you are not familiar with the so-called “greater good” defense for the “problem of evil”. Look it up, or if you need it, I can explain.

Here is one more example: suppose a doctor and his friend take a field trip, and the friend is bitten by a poisonous snake on his left hand’s “pinky finger”. The doctor wishes to save the friend’s life (which is the “greater good”) but he has no antidote in his pocket. The only way to save the life is to perform a quick amputation of the finger. The greater good is achieved, the person’s life is saved, the “price” - losing a finger - is well worth it. However, suppose the doctor does have an antidote, but does not use it. Instead he performs the amputation. In this case the amputation cannot be justified. So, just because there is a “greater good” at the end, that cannot justify the method applied. The only method that can be justified is the “minimal intrusion”, which cannot be “lessened” without losing the benefit.

This method would be the logically necessary prerequisite. Of course even the antidote is “clumsy” compared to the “best, perfect” method.

I really, really think you’re just over-thinking the premise. Suffering is a logical necessity in a world where death, pain and hardship are unavoidable. Suffering is also logical and necessary by dint of the fact that, as Christians, we grow and learn how to trust in God through our experiences with suffering.

 

[Waiting]

Which “love” are you talking about? But of course love is totally irrelevant to the question at hand.

I am ASKING for examples, not arguing about anything.

Only the “unnecessary” evil. Benevolence cannot be reconciled with “gratuitous” or “unnecessary” suffering. That is why I am asking for even ONE example of “logically necessary” suffering. No results so far.

Not true. And not relevant.

This is the so-called “free will defense”, which is totally different. Here the “evil” is the (illogical) consequence, NOT the logical prerequisite. Also the existence of “free will” does not lead logically to the existence of (moral) evil, only to the possibility of it. The “free will defense” (which is not the topic here!) does not explain the “natural evils”.

If there is an “unless” then it is not necessary.

Yes we can. To say that God was unable to pardon us without performing a self-sacrifice is the pinnacle of irrationalty.

You may question God’s decisions, I can’t and won’t. God sees the whole picture. I see a fragment. God thought that the suffering Jesus endured was necessary. God doesn’t act irrationally. Therefore, the suffering was necessary.

 

[zro_x]

The “free will defense” (which is not the topic here!) does not explain the “natural evils”.

maybe it does. Once moral evil is in the world, perhaps God allows natural evil in order to bring about the greater good.

e.g. while traveling towards his next victim, a murdurer is killed in a car accident.

 

[ColdComfort]

Which “love” are you talking about? But of course love is totally irrelevant to the question at hand.

I am ASKING for examples, not arguing about anything.

Only the “unnecessary” evil. Benevolence cannot be reconciled with “gratuitous” or “unnecessary” suffering. That is why I am asking for even ONE example of “logically necessary” suffering. No results so far.

Not true. And not relevant.

This is the so-called “free will defense”, which is totally different. Here the “evil” is the (illogical) consequence, NOT the logical prerequisite. Also the existence of “free will” does not lead logically to the existence of (moral) evil, only to the possibility of it. The “free will defense” (which is not the topic here!) does not explain the “natural evils”.

If there is an “unless” then it is not necessary.

Yes we can. To say that God was unable to pardon us without performing a self-sacrifice is the pinnacle of irrationalty.

Your answers, especially the last and the first one let the cat out. You are attempting to isolate the Christian God from other aspects of Christianity. In doing so, you believe that you have found a logical inconsistenty within Christianity. As I noted above this may be a problem for a deist but not a Christian.

As a result you are talking past others on this board. Love and virtue is what God wants for us. This is what He made us for. These are impossible without free will. You are speaking of physical suffering. Christians believe that original sin brought suffering into the world and that human nature retains a tendancy to evil despite Christ’s redemption and our baptism. So you have your answer: any particular example of physical suffering can be explained by free will and the historical use of it by our first parents and all human creatures since. ( Except Mary).

Christians do not believe we live in the best of all possible worlds. Heaven is the best of all possible worlds; Hell is the worst.

 

[ringil]

The pains of childbirth are nessescary and cannot be avoided, unless of course you adminster a drug which is dangerous…

I know you are too young to have earned an MD. When administered by anesthesiologist pain medication in childbirth is less dangerous than getting into your car.

Where do you get this stuff?

 

[mymamamary]

Which “love” are you talking about? But of course love is totally irrelevant to the question at hand.

I am ASKING for examples, not arguing about anything.

Only the “unnecessary” evil. Benevolence cannot be reconciled with “gratuitous” or “unnecessary” suffering. That is why I am asking for even ONE example of “logically necessary” suffering. No results so far.

Not true. And not relevant.

This is the so-called “free will defense”, which is totally different. Here the “evil” is the (illogical) consequence, NOT the logical prerequisite. Also the existence of “free will” does not lead logically to the existence of (moral) evil, only to the possibility of it. The “free will defense” (which is not the topic here!) does not explain the “natural evils”.

If there is an “unless” then it is not necessary.

**Yes we can. To say that God was unable to pardon us without performing a self-sacrifice is the pinnacle of irrationalty./**QUOTE]

Yes, but I have a problem with that last line of yours. Our LORD chose to die on the cross, as HE very well could have redeemed us minus the pain. However, where would the love have been? Our LORD gave us the supreme example of love. Without the Crucuifixion, We would never have had a perfect Person to unite Our Sufferings to. Otherwise, we would just have suffered needlessy. Now we know that we do indeed have someone to unite our sufferings to. GOD HIMSELF. No one less.

 

[Trurl]

A reply to all.

The “greater good defense” says that God only allowes “necessary” pain and suffering, but does not allow “unnecessary, gratuitous” pain and suffering. It means that whatever pain and suffering exists, it is a LOGICALLY NECESSARY PREREQUISITE to some greater good, and the phrase “logically necessary” means that the amount of “pain and suffering” cannot be lessened without losing the resulting “greater good”. Not even God’s omnipotence can lower the amount of pain and suffering without losing the result.

This is not MY concoction, it is the so-called “greater good defense”. The question of this thread is to provide an example of such “necessary pain and suffering”. So far there was no example.

A few people tried to say that the crucifixion was such an act. Not true. There is no logical impossibility involved in “pardoning” our transgressions, without the “self-sacrifice”. Remember, ONLY logically contradictory solutions are unavailable to God. If a solution does not lead to a logical contradiction, then God COULD instantiate it.

This thread has NOTHING to do with the so-called “free will” defense, which is a completely different ball-game.

It would be nice, just for once to stay within the stipulated framework of a thread, and not to worry about the derail attempts. But, I guess, that will not happen any time soon - if ever.

 

[Lochias]

A reply to all.

The “greater good defense” says that God only allowes “necessary” pain and suffering, but does not allow “unnecessary, gratuitous” pain and suffering. It means that whatever pain and suffering exists, it is a LOGICALLY NECESSARY PREREQUISITE to some greater good, and the phrase “logically necessary” means that the amount of “pain and suffering” cannot be lessened without losing the resulting “greater good”. Not even God’s omnipotence can lower the amount of pain and suffering without losing the result.

This is not MY concoction, it is the so-called “greater good defense”. The question of this thread is to provide an example of such “necessary pain and suffering”. So far there was no example.

A few people tried to say that the crucifixion was such an act. Not true. There is no logical impossibility involved in “pardoning” our transgressions, without the “self-sacrifice”. Remember, ONLY logically contradictory solutions are unavailable to God. If a solution does not lead to a logical contradiction, then God COULD instantiate it.

This thread has NOTHING to do with the so-called “free will” defense, which is a completely different ball-game.

It would be nice, just for once to stay within the stipulated framework of a thread, and not to worry about the derail attempts. But, I guess, that will not happen any time soon - if ever.

Well, hard to feel sympathetic toward someone who walks up to an apple tree and starts demanding pears from it. You don’t like the answers, but you got 'em. Apples is apples.

 

[ColdComfort]

A reply to all.

The “greater good defense” says that God only allowes “necessary” pain and suffering, but does not allow “unnecessary, gratuitous” pain and suffering. It means that whatever pain and suffering exists, it is a LOGICALLY NECESSARY PREREQUISITE to some greater good, and the phrase “logically necessary” means that the amount of “pain and suffering” cannot be lessened without losing the resulting “greater good”. Not even God’s omnipotence can lower the amount of pain and suffering without losing the result.

This is not MY concoction, it is the so-called “greater good defense”. The question of this thread is to provide an example of such “necessary pain and suffering”. So far there was no example.

If it’s not your concoction where did you get it? If you mean that God would not allow any particular example of suffering unless it leads to a particular greater good then I find this an odd way of thinking about the question. You would have to define ‘good’ and ‘good’ for whom and then come up with some sort of calculus: suffering x, which could not be avoided even by God, leads to a good y with y>x.

A few people tried to say that the crucifixion was such an act. Not true. There is no logical impossibility involved in “pardoning” our transgressions, without the “self-sacrifice”. Remember, ONLY logically contradictory solutions are unavailable to God. If a solution does not lead to a logical contradiction, then God COULD instantiate it.

This thread has NOTHING to do with the so-called “free will” defense, which is a completely different ball-game.

It would be nice, just for once to stay within the stipulated framework of a thread, and not to worry about the derail attempts. But, I guess, that will not happen any time soon - if ever.

Why ask a question and then say the answers you get are derailing your thread? Love and Virtue are the greater goods you are asking about and they are only possible, even for God, by creating us with freewill. Free will has had the consequences many have already talked about.

 

[Trurl]

If it’s not your concoction where did you get it?

It is the standard “greater good defense”. God allows some amount of pain and suffering, which leads to some “greater good”, but would never allow “unnecessary, gratuitous” suffering.

If you mean that God would not allow any particular example of suffering unless it leads to a particular greater good then I find this an odd way of thinking about the question.

Why would it be “odd”? If there is even ONE example of “needless, gratuitous” suffering, then God is not “perfectly benevolent” any more. From a perfectly loving and caring deity one can “expect” a 100% performance. It is the believers who assert God’s perfect love and caring. And then they would accept an imperfect display of that “love”, by allowing some “minor, not so earth-shattering, transitory” pain and suffering?

You would have to define ‘good’ and ‘good’ for whom and then come up with some sort of calculus: suffering x, which could not be avoided even by God, leads to a good y with y>x.

But this is the point. I cannot do this, because then I would be accused of creating a special “playing field” to limit your ability to give just ONE example. So I leave everything open for you. Just remember, in that scenario if “x” would be lessened even just a little bit to “x - 1”, then the “y” would fail to materialize. Every bit of that “pain and suffering” is logically necessary for the “y” to come true.

Why ask a question and then say the answers you get are derailing your thread? Love and Virtue are the greater goods you are asking about and they are only possible, even for God, by creating us with freewill. Free will has had the consequences many have already talked about.

But you did not define “love” and did not define “vitrue”. Love has many “variants” and virtue is totally undefined. Also from the existence of “free will” the actuality of evil / pain / suffering does NOT follow, only the potentiality of it. And God’s omnipotence can deal with “potentiality”, the only thing it cannot “deal with” is a logically contradictory state of affairs.

Let me clarify something. There are two, totally different approaches. One is the “greater good” defense, which that the the “evil / pain / suffering” is the logically necessary prerequisite (and this the topic of this thread). The other one is the “free will” defense, which says that the the existence of free will is so valuable, that God needs to “tolerate” some “unnecessary, gratuitous evil”, becuase it follows logically from the existence of free will. There two approaches a diametrically opposing each other, in the “greater good” the evil is a necessary prerequisite, in the “free will” is is a necessary corollary.

Again, in this thread I am asking ONLY ONE example of a “logically necessary prerequisite”. So far there was not one answer to this particular question. There were lots of answers to OTHER questions, which I did NOT ask.

 

[Sair]

Its no slogan, it is a fact of life. You cannot get out of bed in the morning without not really wanting to [maybe its cold outside, Thurl], then you bang your head on the shelf, your shin on the table, burn your breakfast after suffering the trouble to make it… I could go on.

Gosh, is your daily life really that unpleasant? I think you might be doing it wrong…

What you are probably trying to ask is that question, “Is there a rock too heavy for God to lift?”, or ‘can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?’.

And here we get to the heart of the contradiction inherent in the notion of God’s omnipotence. Either he is or he isn’t. It might well be illogical for God to counter his own powers; but that’s not an explanation for why certain goods can only be achieved through extreme levels of suffering.

The thing is, the problem of evil only exists as a philosophical problem for believers in the God of Classical Theism - I’ve explained this before, and in response have merely been presented with the assertion that I have this backwards. But think about it - I don’t believe in an omnipotent, benevolent being. I don’t have to ask, at any given point, “Why did God allow this suffering to happen?” Indeed, the problem of evil/suffering is a practical problem for nonbelievers, but it’s a problem we have to meet on our own.

It makes sense for suffering to exist in a purely naturalistic universe, one governed entirely by unthinking, indifferent physical laws and constants; it doesn’t make sense for it to exist in a universe presided over by a being with the attributes of the Christian God. Some believers try to have it both ways by claiming that I should acknowledge God’s hand in the production of this “apparently” naturalistic universe; but what that claim boils down to is a thinly-veiled admission that the God who is claimed to be omnipotent is, in fact, heavily limited in what he can achieve. Either God is supernatural, and therefore capable of acting above and beyond nature were he so inclined (ie: were he truly benevolent and interested in - at the very least - human welfare) or he is the equivalent of those unthinking, indifferent natural laws and constants I mentioned above.

 

[pig]

…

And here we get to the heart of the contradiction inherent in the notion of God’s omnipotence. Either he is or he isn’t. It might well be illogical for God to counter his own powers; but that’s not an explanation for why certain goods can only be achieved through extreme levels of suffering.

The thing is, the problem of evil only exists as a philosophical problem for believers in the God of Classical Theism - I’ve explained this before, and in response have merely been presented with the assertion that I have this backwards. But think about it - I don’t believe in an omnipotent, benevolent being. I don’t have to ask, at any given point, “Why did God allow this suffering to happen?” Indeed, the problem of evil/suffering is a practical problem for nonbelievers, but it’s a problem we have to meet on our own.

It makes sense for suffering to exist in a purely naturalistic universe, one governed entirely by unthinking, indifferent physical laws and constants; it doesn’t make sense for it to exist in a universe presided over by a being with the attributes of the Christian God. Some believers try to have it both ways by claiming that I should acknowledge God’s hand in the production of this “apparently” naturalistic universe; but what that claim boils down to is a thinly-veiled admission that the God who is claimed to be omnipotent is, in fact, heavily limited in what he can achieve. Either God is supernatural, and therefore capable of acting above and beyond nature were he so inclined (ie: were he truly benevolent and interested in - at the very least - human welfare) or he is the equivalent of those unthinking, indifferent natural laws and constants I mentioned above.

and the question God is asking himself is, do I really want to spend eternity with someone who does not want me? or even, will someone who does not want me want to spend eternity with me?
how to solve this problem. step 1. make them free. step 2. see them reject you. step 3. make them work and suffer. step 4. allow them to only rest in you.

 

[ColdComfort]

It is the standard “greater good defense”. God allows some amount of pain and suffering, which leads to some “greater good”, but would never allow “unnecessary, gratuitous” suffering.

Why would it be “odd”? If there is even ONE example of “needless, gratuitous” suffering, then God is not “perfectly benevolent” any more. From a perfectly loving and caring deity one can “expect” a 100% performance. It is the believers who assert God’s perfect love and caring. And then they would accept an imperfect display of that “love”, by allowing some “minor, not so earth-shattering, transitory” pain and suffering?

But this is the point. I cannot do this, because then I would be accused of creating a special “playing field” to limit your ability to give just ONE example. So I leave everything open for you. Just remember, in that scenario if “x” would be lessened even just a little bit to “x - 1”, then the “y” would fail to materialize. Every bit of that “pain and suffering” is logically necessary for the “y” to come true.

But you did not define “love” and did not define “vitrue”. Love has many “variants” and virtue is totally undefined. Also from the existence of “free will” the actuality of evil / pain / suffering does NOT follow, only the potentiality of it. And God’s omnipotence can deal with “potentiality”, the only thing it cannot “deal with” is a logically contradictory state of affairs.

Let me clarify something. There are two, totally different approaches. One is the “greater good” defense, which that the the “evil / pain / suffering” is the logically necessary prerequisite (and this the topic of this thread). The other one is the “free will” defense, which says that the the existence of free will is so valuable, that God needs to “tolerate” some “unnecessary, gratuitous evil”, becuase it follows logically from the existence of free will. There two approaches a diametrically opposing each other, in the “greater good” the evil is a necessary prerequisite, in the “free will” is is a necessary corollary.

Again, in this thread I am asking ONLY ONE example of a “logically necessary prerequisite”. So far there was not one answer to this particular question. There were lots of answers to OTHER questions, which I did NOT ask.

1. Free will is the answer. Which led to original sin and the tendancy in human nature to sin. You will have to explain why ‘greater good’ and ‘free will’ aprroaches are in water-tight compartments.
2. You have already rejected the crucifixion as an example. But in Christian belief the incarnation, passion and resurrection of Jesus was necessary. You don’t think so, apparently having the mind of God, but so what to us.
3. Are you suggesting that God would/should interfere with the consequences of free will and thus prevent suffering. How would this work? Stop the trains to Auschwitz? Make the gas there non-lethal. What? How could you have the suffering resulting from free will exist only in potential?
4. Defining the good is the heart of the problem. I think you are talking about physical suffering. Correct me if I’m wrong. There are philosophical arguments around that say material beings must suffer physically but I’m not enough of a philosopher to make them. At any rate, I am talking about Love and Virtue that makes us fit for eternity with God and their opposites.
5. If I accept your premise that the existence of any, “gratutious” physical suffering not logically necessary to lead to a greater good then I would agree with your argument. If I walk in front of bus and end up with a broken leg I suppose I have learned a lesson to be more careful. But God could allow me to feel pain for say a minute and then heal the bone and I would still probably have learned my lesson. It’s your premise that is wrong.
6. God does indeed bring greater goods out of evil acts and suffering. Try St. John of the Cross. Or Joseph welcoming his brothers who sold him into slavery.
7. I think your premise misrepresents what Christians accept as truth about the world we now live in. It is a “vale of tears”. But it is not Hell nor is it Heaven. I think you need to bring such a premise to a Deist who deduces from the nature of God that we live in the best of all possible worlds here and now.
8. In short, straw man to Catholics.

 

[icouch]

The self-fulfilling logic in this thread is painful.

There is no “reason” behind cancer. Cancer is a disease for which there is no cure. As human beings, we tend to create reason for ourselves. In the case of cancer, we can “find” a number of reasons: perhaps the cancer is part of God’s plan, and because God is omnipotent, we can’t understand why he allows people to get cancer. Or maybe chemotherapy is God’s gift to humanity, to help us fight cancer (why He wouldn’t just cure cancer is beyond me).

Cancer is not a “moral” issue. The person who gets cancer did nothing to “deserve” it. There is no “free-will” involved with contracting cancer (with the possible exception of skin cancer). So why would God allow someone to get this disease? It’s part of his “plan”? Or maybe God “works in mysterious ways”?

It’s beyond me.

 

[davidv]

The self-fulfilling logic in this thread is painful.

There is no “reason” behind cancer. Cancer is a disease for which there is no cure. As human beings, we tend to create reason for ourselves. In the case of cancer, we can “find” a number of reasons: perhaps the cancer is part of God’s plan, and because God is omnipotent, we can’t understand why he allows people to get cancer. Or maybe chemotherapy is God’s gift to humanity, to help us fight cancer (why He wouldn’t just cure cancer is beyond me).

Cancer is not a “moral” issue. The person who gets cancer did nothing to “deserve” it. There is no “free-will” involved with contracting cancer (with the possible exception of skin cancer). So why would God allow someone to get this disease? It’s part of his “plan”? Or maybe God “works in mysterious ways”?

It’s beyond me.

Why is it surprising the some of the things about God are mysterious? Does anyone here have unlimited intellectual capacity? Unlimited knowledge?