The Problem of Pain

[sw85]

I sure would like to see that chain of fully secular and totally rational arguments. First for the existence of God, and second for the benevolence of God, which allows the unnecessary suffering of animals. Bring it on, my friend.

I would direct you to Edward Feser’s “The Last Superstition,” who reviews the rational proofs for God’s existence and who, being a professor of philosophy, is capable of expounding on them much better than I could.

 

[Elvenwarrior2k1]

Okay, there’s a lot here to look through. Thank you folks. I’ll look that book up, and reread some of the longer posts here. Hopefully some of it my friend will find useful in his struggle with his faith.

 

[Jonesboy]

Completely irrelevant. The problem is to reconcile the existence of unnecessary pain and suffering with a benevolent diety. If there is just one instance of a pain for which it cannot be shown that it was logically necessary to achieve some greater good, then God is not benevolent (try the suffering of animals in a wildfire as a good exercise ). The usual argument is that we do not have access to all the facts, and “maybe” there is some unspecified “greater good” at the end of the pain, which would be obvious, if only we had all the pertinent information. And that “argument” is simply the fallacy of “argumentum ad ignoratiam”.

But who or what decides is “unnecessary suffering”?
If we are told that to question our existence and identity is an illness, then that looks like an imposition of a belief, a belief legitimised as a diagnosis. A belief certainly isn’t legitimised “by” a diiagnosis.

There are no greater goods if there is no pain.

 

[Spirithound]

Indeed, IF one accepts the preconditions on BLIND faith. But is anything is accepted on BLIND faith then no rational argument is needed. The OP started from the premise that somehow the existence of pain and suffering can be LOGICALLY and RATIONALLY reconciled with a benevolent God.

No, the OP started from the premise of a benevolent God. He intends to investigate the question of whether the existence of pain and suffering can be logically and rationally reconciled with this benevolent God.

 

[Jonesboy]

To a point, that is true, as in when you step on a sharp object and the pain warns you to draw back your leg lest you be injured; pain then is good, it protects the human body from disability.

But it’s still a problem, as in many instances there is nothing to be done and yet the pain continues (someone recovering from burns, or dying of cancer.)

Suffering is generally something to be avoided: It is in our nature as human beings to avoid it. We don’t normally seek out physical trauma or dysfunctional relationships.

But the nature of our entropic world is such that suffering is not always evitable.

ICXC NIKA.

How are you going to control grieving, or solace, or regret? by medication? by avoidance? That’s not a legitimate solution.

 

[GEddie]

How are you going to control grieving, or solace, or regret? by medication? by avoidance? That’s not a legitimate solution.

Where did I say that such could be “controlled?”

 

[Spock]

I would direct you to Edward Feser’s “The Last Superstition,” who reviews the rational proofs for God’s existence and who, being a professor of philosophy, is capable of expounding on them much better than I could.

Sorry, I already wasted a lot of time on other authors, and their fallacious arguments (from Aquinas to Peter Kreeft, and a bunch in-between). If you can make a case in your own words, I will be happy to read them.

 

[Spock]

But who or what decides is “unnecessary suffering”?

We do, based upon the available evidence, and by using the duck principle (if it looks like a duck, tastes like a duck, walks like a duck then it is very probably a duck and not an elephant). If all the evidence we have points to a suffering which seems to be unnecessary, then we deem it unnecessary. God is always welcome to come and give us the rest of the evidence, so we can form a more justified opinion.

We never have “all” the details at hand, not in criminal court either. We make the best decision we can make. If a criminal would say: “but you don’t know all the details, therefore you cannot pass a judgment over me” - I can tell you that jury would laugh its collected head off - and righfully so.

 

[Spock]

No, the OP started from the premise of a benevolent God. He intends to investigate the question of whether the existence of pain and suffering can be logically and rationally reconciled with this benevolent God.

Same thing, different words. I already posited a simple problem, and it looks like that no one wishes to tackle it: There is an incredible amout of pain and suffering in random wildfires. The animals involved will not benefit from those fires, they perish in great pain. They will not be “rewarded” in heaven, either. The fire may be beneficial for us, humans, if it clears off the underbrush, that is true. But that benefit cannot be used to justify the suffering of the animals, since the same benefit would be achieved even if the animals did not burn to death. The possible argument, that animals “do not matter” is unacceptable. A beneficial God does no allow gratitous suffering of animals either. Thre other possible argument, that wildfires are “natural occurrances” is without merit. God can do anything, except logical contradictions, and there is nothing logically contradictory in saving the animals from the pain.

As far as I am concerned the problem is solved. There is unnecessary pain and suffering. Therefore God either does not exist, of if he exists, then he is not beneficial.

 

[pnewton]

Okay, there’s a lot here to look through. Thank you folks. I’ll look that book up, and reread some of the longer posts here. Hopefully some of it my friend will find useful in his struggle with his faith.

Let me know if I can help or clarify anything. Believe it or not, I edited my longer posts to delete personal details. I may have done too much. Here is one more piece of this riddle you might be able to use.

peterkreeft.com/audio/07_suffering.htm

It is an audio by one of the sharpest minds in philosophy entitled,* Making Sense Out of Suffering. *

 

[JDaniel]

Same thing, different words. I already posited a simple problem, and it looks like that no one wishes to tackle it: There is an incredible amout of pain and suffering in random wildfires. The animals involved will not benefit from those fires, they perish in great pain. They will not be “rewarded” in heaven, either. The fire may be beneficial for us, humans, if it clears off the underbrush, that is true. But that benefit cannot be used to justify the suffering of the animals, since the same benefit would be achieved even if the animals did not burn to death. The possible argument, that animals “do not matter” is unacceptable. A beneficial God does no allow gratitous suffering of animals either. Thre other possible argument, that wildfires are “natural occurrances” is without merit. God can do anything, except logical contradictions, and there is nothing logically contradictory in saving the animals from the pain.

Spock:

Doesn’t this kind of argument smack of self-aggrandizing over-dramatization to you? I wonder how many of the participants herein have been veterinarians, or worked for veterinarians. I have: Animal General Hospital in Miami Springs, FL, many years ago. In doing my work there one thing became very apparent: animals possess either or all of three things: (1) an extremely high threshold for pain; or (2) a different tactile response system than we have. (3) Not to mention the built-in natural pain shut-down mechanism both animals and humans have, called “shock.” The several veterinarians and I would more than occasionally remark about how “stoic” this or that animal was. (Also, the odds are that the majority animals in wild-fires die from smoke-inhalation, not from the flames.)

I have lived with pain for as long as I can remember. I won’t say what it is, but, I will say that it is one that we hear about often. It is very annoying almost every minute of the day, but I do not regard myself as suffering. I had two very painful surgeries before I was ten years old and several baseball related injuries since then. I don’t ever remember bemoaning to myself that these pains seemed “unnecessary.” I just opted to live with them. So, I think the question of who decides what is “unnecessary pain” is a cogent one.

As far as I am concerned the problem is solved. There is unnecessary pain and suffering. Therefore God either does not exist, of if he exists, then he is not beneficial.

When I see or hear this, it tends to only strengthen my belief and faith in a wondorous God. You might not want to utilize this argument against theism in the future.

God bless,
jd

 

[PJM]

I have a friend whose fallen away from the Church because of his difficulty in understanding why or how God can allow evil, particularly suffering, like natural disasters and disease, and still be just and loving. He reasons that if God knew these things would happen when he set things in motion He is therefore responsible for them. As the title suggests I’ve already recommended he read C.S. Lewis’ The Problem of Pain, which he read, but did not find sufficiently convincing. He has mentioned he’ll read it again to see if he’s missed something, and he seems open and wanting to find the answer.

So my question is: Does anyone have any good resources, such as books, etc., regarding suffering, pain, disease, natural disasters, etc. and how God can allow them and still be a good, just, loving god.

Thank you in advance.

THIS is a MESSAGE for your friend; not the author:

YEA: The Catholic Bible NEW TESTAMENT

Because God IS a good, just and a loving God; God permits BUT CANNOT cause these things to happen. The idea that one can [or should] be able to follow Christ in His Glory without first have followed Christ in His Suffering is foolish.

The number of folks who find Christ hrough adversity is FAR greater than those who deny Gods merciful love and power to make something good out of what seems to us to be ONLY bad.

Isa.55 Verses 7 to 9 “let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts”.

Take Up your Cross and Follow Me

**Phil.2: 8 **“And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross **Luke.9 :23 And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. Mark.8: 34 And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Luke.9: 23 **And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. **Luke.14: 7 ****Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” **

1Pet.4: 13 ” But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

**1Pet.5: 1, 9 ** “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world.”

2Tim.4: 5 “As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”

**Phil.1: 29 **“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, “

**2Thes.1: 5 “**This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be made worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering “

**Heb. 2: 10 **For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering."

ONE CAN NOT LEAVE THE ONE TRUE FAITH; ONE TRUE CHURCH; ONE TRUE GOD WITH IM PUNITY…

** Heb.6 Verses 4 to 8** “For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, taught the One singular truths] who have tasted the heavenly gift,[Catholic Holy Communion] and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, Been Confirmed in the Catholic Faith] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, What the Bible actually DOES mean] if they then ***commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. *** For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, OFFERED MUCH GRACE] and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, **receives a blessing from God. **[8] But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.”

Dear friend; it’s not God who is at fault here…

READ the Bible and PRAY for understanding.

May God Bless and GUIDE you.

Pat

.

 

[Spock]

Doesn’t this kind of argument smack of self-aggrandizing over-dramatization to you?

It does not. Facts are facts. They speak for themselves. And I do not use euphemisms, I prefer to call a spade, a spade.

I wonder how many of the participants herein have been veterinarians, or worked for veterinarians. I have: Animal General Hospital in Miami Springs, FL, many years ago. In doing my work there one thing became very apparent: animals possess either or all of three things: (1) an extremely high threshold for pain; or (2) a different tactile response system than we have. (3) Not to mention the built-in natural pain shut-down mechanism both animals and humans have, called “shock.” The several veterinarians and I would more than occasionally remark about how “stoic” this or that animal was. (Also, the odds are that the majority animals in wild-fires die from smoke-inhalation, not from the flames.)

All I can say is this: “go and push a flaming stick into the side of a dog”. See how the dog reacts. Perform a Pavlovian experiment, and ring a bell before you do it. See how many repetitions will be required before that “stoic” reaction will be shattered as soon the bell rings, what will the reaction of the dog be?

But this should not even be necessary (and very cruel, too. I am very sure that you are not a cruel person). You say that the majority of the animals dies of smoke inhalation. Is that a “pleasant” way to go? What about the minority of the animals, who actually die of exposure to fire? Even if there is only one, that suffering is “not fun” for the animal, and it does not add to whatever “greater good” is presumed. The thrashing of anyone (human or animal) who is being burned gives ample testimony about the “unpleasantness” of the procedure. I hope this description does not sound “over-dramatization” to you.

The point is this: even a miniscule, tiny discomfort (not even pain) is cruel if it is not part of a logical chain, leading to some “greater good”. If a doctor would need to treat a patient with a snake bite, and there in no poison-antidote present, then an amputation is justified to save the patient life. If, however, there is the antidote at hand, and the doctor still opts to perform an unneeded amputation, then this procedure cannot be justfied.

Let’s be logical and rational here: if there is a greater good, which can only be achieved by employing a painful method (God’s omnipotence notwithstanding) then the pain can be justified, but only to the extent that the pain is logically necessary. As soon as the necessary amout of pain is reached, the pain must be stopped, because from that moment on, it is not necessary any more. So very simple.

I have lived with pain for as long as I can remember. I won’t say what it is, but, I will say that it is one that we hear about often. It is very annoying almost every minute of the day, but I do not regard myself as suffering. I had two very painful surgeries before I was ten years old and several baseball related injuries since then. I don’t ever remember bemoaning to myself that these pains seemed “unnecessary.” I just opted to live with them. So, I think the question of who decides what is “unnecessary pain” is a cogent one.

I am sure we all have a different tolerance to pain. I would venture to say that IF you would see someone (I am not going to mention a child, lest I would be accused of over-dramatizing again yes, I am being mildly sarcastic) in pain and suffering, and IF you had the power to stop that pain, you WOULD employ your powers to stop it. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you would “endure” that someone’s pain. (Some people do. They are able to endure someone else’s pain in a truly “heroic” fashion.) I don’t know, but I sure hope you would not. I would think that your first gut-reaction would be: “let’s help!”, and not “well, obviously God allowed that pain so he can create some greater good out of it, and if I interfered, then I might ruin that mysterios plan of God… so I will just stay on the side-line and will not interfere”. I am very certain that your instinctive gut-reaction describes your own reaction to pain, and not the aloof “well, God knows best”. Your gut-reaction will belie your own words. Isn’t that interesting to contemplate? Actions speak so much louder than words, don’t they?

When I see or hear this, it tends to only strengthen my belief and faith in a wondorous God. You might not want to utilize this argument against theism in the future.

What can I say? Blind faith is not my cup of tea.

 

[sw85]

Sorry, I already wasted a lot of time on other authors, and their fallacious arguments (from Aquinas to Peter Kreeft, and a bunch in-between). If you can make a case in your own words, I will be happy to read them.

What is the fallacy in, say, the Unmoved Mover argument?

I ask because you’ve exhibited a tendency so far in this thread to see things as fallacious that aren’t, so…

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Both my wife and I live with intense pain every day of our lives.

My wife has a multi-level incomplete lesion of the spinal cord. She has an “intra-thecal infusion pump” which pumps an extremely potent narcotic pain medication directly into her spinal canal. She also has to take Morphine orally, for breakthrough pain when she is active.

She has been on high doses of narcotic pain medications since she was 19, and severely injured her spine while working at a Catholic summer camp. Her case set two precedents at the California Supreme Court in Worker’s Compensation law (Rausch v. Terracita Pines), because the Archdiocese of Los Angeles denied any responsibility for her injuries.

She had to sue them, for 3 years, to finally get medical coverage and get the surgery she needed on her spine! She did NOT blame the Church, or God, for this, she blamed the individuals that lied, committed perjury (a Monseignor was convicted of Perjury in her case) and the staff of the camp she worked at for flat out lying about her duties and several other matters.

She had been accepted by the Holy Cross Order, had her trunk packed, and was ready to go to Indiana at the end of the summer. That accident put an end to that!, But she didn’t blame God for that either.

I sustained two compression fractures in my spine, after falling 9 feet onto a concrete driveway. Both of the vertebra involved lost over 50% of their height (this means they were smashed), and both impact nerve roots. The result is that I have constant pain, and have to take heavy doses of Hydrocodone every day in order to function. I was also wounded in Vietnam, and have significant pain in my hip (and I limp) because of that.

Both of us have pain, moderate to severe pain, even with the pain medications that we take. The more active we are, the more it hurts.

This is NOT God’s fault! To blame God for this is like blaming your parents because you let go of a balloon as a baby, and it floated away!

God did not make the saddle of the horse my wife was riding slip. God did not make that horse gallop completely out of control God did not make the cinch break, throwing my wife into a pile of rocks and almost killing her.

And God did NOT make me fall off of my garage roof.

So, why on earth should we blame God for the fact that we have pain?

We CHOOSE how to live our lives. My wife and I hurt if we stay in bed, and we hurt if we are active. We CHOOSE to remain active, to continue to live our lives.

My wife is a Lector, sings in the Choir and is active with a couple of community organizations.

I am a Lector, an Extraordinary Minister of Communion, I am active in both the 3rd and 4th Degree Knight’s of Columbus and I also am involved in community activities.

God neither causes our problems, nor does he interfere in how WE choose TO DEAL WITH THEM. He gives us free will, and WE decide how we will live our lives.

God KNOWS what will happen to us, but he does NOT cause those things to happen. They are an opportunity for us, an opportunity to grow as people, to come closer to God, and to also hopefully set an example for others.

Pain is only a problem, if you choose to LET it be a problem.

My wife and I choose NOT to let it be a problem.

 

[Spock]

What is the fallacy in, say, the Unmoved Mover argument?

Simple. It is nonsensical. Movement, change or causation are only defined within the universe, along with space, time, the concept of prior to, or after this, etc… The universe is a collection of “things” not a “thing” in itself. The concepts mentioned above are undefined and undefinable for the universe. Aquinas committed the fallacy of making observations within the universe, and then attempting to apply the result of the observations to the universe.

“Movement” is a property of matter. There is no “movement” where there is no matter. Causation is an exchange of material particles. Without matter there is no causation (and no reference to some smoke-and-mirrors “efficient causation” will change this). Before and after are properties of STEM (space, time, energy, matter). What philosophers attempt to do is apply these categories as if they were independent of the material infrastructure. There is a good expression for this endeavor: “balloon peeling”. What do you get, when you peel the surface off a ballon? Nothing. And that is what philosophers do. The only problem is that they get paid for it. If they would use their energy on creating actual “things”, we all would be better off.

The very questions: “what was before the universe?”, or “what is outside the universe?”, or “what caused the universe?” and so on… are meaningless questions, because they attempt to apply concepts which are simply not applicable. Consider the direction of “north”. This concept can be applied to all points on the surface of Earth, but it cannopt be applied at the north pole. But this should belong to a different thread.

 

[JDaniel]

It does not. Facts are facts. They speak for themselves. And I do not use euphemisms, I prefer to call a spade, a spade.

Spock:

I was asking a simple question. Sheesh!

All I can say is this: “go and push a flaming stick into the side of a dog”. See how the dog reacts. Perform a Pavlovian experiment, and ring a bell before you do it. See how many repetitions will be required before that “stoic” reaction will be shattered as soon the bell rings, what will the reaction of the dog be?

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Would you embellish, please?

But this should not even be necessary (and very cruel, too. I am very sure that you are not a cruel person). You say that the majority of the animals dies of smoke inhalation. Is that a “pleasant” way to go? What about the minority of the animals, who actually die of exposure to fire?

I suspect that much of my opinion on the matter is colored by my having witnessed and, subsequently, wandered through many brush (wild) fires as a kid. As I wandered through them, I never saw an animal other than an occasional snake or lizard. As an older and (wishfully) smarter person, I can see how the snakes perished: they are built too low to the ground. (Of course, that may benefit them in other ways. For example, it makes them less conspicuous to soaring predators, while the rodent or song bird, is more conspicuous.)

Smoke inhalation is probably not a pleasant way to go, but, from science, we are told that it is a much quicker way to die. Thus, it may be, in a way, “more humane.”

Even if there is only one, that suffering is “not fun” for the animal, and it does not add to whatever “greater good” is presumed. The thrashing of anyone (human or animal) who is being burned gives ample testimony about the “unpleasantness” of the procedure. I hope this description does not sound “over-dramatization” to you.

I agree that such pain is painful and hard to contemplate.

The point is this: even a miniscule, tiny discomfort (not even pain) is cruel if it is not part of a logical chain, leading to some “greater good”. If a doctor would need to treat a patient with a snake bite, and there in no poison-antidote present, then an amputation is justified to save the patient life. If, however, there is the antidote at hand, and the doctor still opts to perform an unneeded amputation, then this procedure cannot be justified.

There’s the rub. We have been told throughout Scripture that there was/is/will be a “greater good.” If we’re still alive, we have no way of knowing that for sure. Those of us with Faith, take that on faith, too.

Let’s be logical and rational here: if there is a greater good, which can only be achieved by employing a painful method (God’s omnipotence notwithstanding) then the pain can be justified, but only to the extent that the pain is logically necessary. As soon as the necessary amount of pain is reached, the pain must be stopped, because from that moment on, it is not necessary any more. So very simple.

Isn’t that usually how it goes? How often do we hear of humans, or animals, enduring hours upon hours, or days upon days, of pain? Only extremely rarely. And, usually in those cases, if we’re trying to be reasonable and logical here, we tend to project, in my opinion. Why? Very simply because from those rare cases we even more rarely get to ask those suffers, “What it was like?” So, we ask ourselves how we would like it: then project.

I am sure we all have a different tolerance to pain. I would venture to say that IF you would see someone (I am not going to mention a child, lest I would be accused of over-dramatizing again yes, I am being mildly sarcastic)

(I’m a grown-up; I can take it!)

in pain and suffering, and IF you had the power to stop that pain, you WOULD employ your powers to stop it.

Of course, I would. Even Jesus, in His wanderings, stopped to “help” people in distress and pain. If I didn’t, I would not be like Him. (Of course, I’d like to think that I had some kind of personal internal drive that was the cause of it; but, in my Faith, I believe that it is God that makes it happen, with a little help from me.)

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you would “endure” that someone’s pain. (Some people do. They are able to endure someone else’s pain in a truly “heroic” fashion.) I don’t know, but I sure hope you would not. I would think that your first gut-reaction would be: “let’s help!”, and not “well, obviously God allowed that pain so he can create some greater good out of it, and if I interfered, then I might ruin that mysterious plan of God… so I will just stay on the side-line and will not interfere”. I am very certain that your instinctive gut-reaction describes your own reaction to pain, and not the aloof “well, God knows best”. Your gut-reaction will belie your own words. Isn’t that interesting to contemplate? Actions speak so much louder than words, don’t they?

I’m pretty certain that I would, without a mere moment’s thought, strive to “help.”

What can I say? Blind faith is not my cup of tea.

You call it, “blind Faith;” and I call it “miraculous Faith.” Let’s be logical here, again: I have really and truly suffered no loss of Faith whatsoever from all of these considerations. That’s an honest output. It is possible that it is due to my affinity for Catholicism, which, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, is quite different from other kinds of faith.

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Would you embellish, please?

Simple. Animals “exhibit a pain reaction”, and they try to avoid it. Therefore they do not find it “palatable”. Since they behave as if they were in pain, we must assume that they are in pain.

I suspect that much of my opinion on the matter is colored by my having witnessed and, subsequently, wandered through many brush (wild) fires as a kid. As I wandered through them, I never saw an animal other than an occasional snake or lizard.

What is your point? We are talking about unnecessary, gratituos pain and suffering - which is incompatible with a benevolent person.

Smoke inhalation is probably not a pleasant way to go, but, from science, we are told that it is a much quicker way to die. Thus, it may be, in a way, “more humane.”

“More” humane is not humane.

I agree that such pain is painful and hard to contemplate.

But it must be contemplated in this scenario.

There’s the rub. We have been told throughout Scripture that there was/is/will be a “greater good.” If we’re still alive, we have no way of knowing that for sure. Those of us with Faith, take that on faith, too.

This is the point here. You have been told and you do not question it. No matter how irrational it is, you do not question it. That is blind faith.

Of course, I would. Even Jesus, in His wanderings, stopped to “help” people in distress and pain. If I didn’t, I would not be like Him. (Of course, I’d like to think that I had some kind of personal internal drive that was the cause of it; but, in my Faith, I believe that it is God that makes it happen, with a little help from me.)

That is fine. The point is that you do not act under the assumption that all pains and sufferings are “necessary”.

You call it, “blind Faith;” and I call it “miraculous Faith.” Let’s be logical here, again: I have really and truly suffered no loss of Faith whatsoever from all of these considerations. That’s an honest output. It is possible that it is due to my affinity for Catholicism, which, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, is quite different from other kinds of faith.

No, I did not notice any difference. Blind faith - which to keep believing in the face of evidence to the contrary is prevalent to sorts of religious beliefs.

 

[JDaniel]

Simple. Animals “exhibit a pain reaction”, and they try to avoid it. Therefore they do not find it “palatable”. Since they behave as if they were in pain, we must assume that they are in pain.

Spock:

Gotcha!

What is your point? We are talking about unnecessary, gratituos pain and suffering - which is incompatible with a benevolent person.

And, I’m saying that we simply don’t know what “unnecessary, gratuitous” are in this. Moreover, we don’t have the slightest clue whether what we do see is incompatible with benevolence. That is only your/our anthropomorphistic assumption.

“More” humane is not humane.

OK. Delete the word, “more.” (I didn’t think about it. Had I, I wouldn’t have put it there.)

This is the point here. You have been told and you do not question it. No matter how irrational it is, you do not question it. That is blind faith.

That is the predicament. I/We see you as the irrational one.

That is fine. The point is that you do not act under the assumption that all pains and sufferings are “necessary”.

Nor did I ever say that I did. When and where we can intervene, we are expected to. When and where we can’t (or don’t), then there may be a necessity. We can only conjecture.

No, I did not notice any difference. Blind faith - which to keep believing in the face of evidence to the contrary is prevalent to sorts of religious beliefs.

On the contrary: I see “evidence” that you refuse to see.

God bless,
jd

 

[Elvenwarrior2k1]

Let me know if I can help or clarify anything. Believe it or not, I edited my longer posts to delete personal details. I may have done too much. Here is one more piece of this riddle you might be able to use.

peterkreeft.com/audio/07_suffering.htm

It is an audio by one of the sharpest minds in philosophy entitled,* Making Sense Out of Suffering. *

Thank you, I will definitely check it out.