The Problem of Pain

[Spock]

No, the believer begins by accepting God’s benevolence because that is the standard position of Christianity. Secondly, those believers who say that there “might” be some unknown and unknowable “greater good” are wimps. I say that there definitely IS a greater good to be attained from suffering. We take that position from the Bible, again standard position of Christianity (Romans 5:3-5, Jeremiah 29:11). Also note that this is not an argument from ignorance, it is an appeal to authority.

I understand this, but you are not talking to a fellow Catholic here. Of course, if you only wished to explain the Catholic stance, then you did a fine job. (I was already aware of it.) If that is all you are interested in, then nothing else needs to be said. If, on the other hand, you wish to convince an atheist about God’s benevolence, you need to engage in a bit more substantial conversation, where God’s benevolence is entertained as a hypothesis only, not as an axiom… and arguments from authority are not accepted.

Our entire economy is based on risk…

Please gimme a break. I already explained to JD why the risk is totally irrelevant.

I depart from your interpretation of my friend here. When people suffer, it is for their own greater good. When the suffering has been relieved, the suffering has achieved its full good.

I seriously doubt that you would follow your own advice. Start to pound your thumb with a big hammer and when you stop it, you will experience your “greater good”. Is that what you have in mind? Furthermore, it seems to me that not all sufferings have a happy ending. Some people will never recover from their suffering - it will lead to their death. Is now “death” the greater good? Others will never recover and live with suffering during their whole life. What is their “greater good”?

Such is my position. It is internally logical.

It is logical, indeed - but not reasonable. Some argument, which is logically valid does not mean that it is logically sound!

 

[Spirithound]

I seriously doubt that you would follow your own advice. Start to pound your thumb with a big hammer and when you stop it, you will experience your “greater good”. Is that what you have in mind? Furthermore, it seems to me that not all sufferings have a happy ending. Some people will never recover from their suffering - it will lead to their death. Is now “death” the greater good? Others will never recover and live with suffering during their whole life. What is their “greater good”?

The greater good is precisely the opportunity that person receives to unite their suffering with Christ. Of course, I realize that this is not reasonable to an atheist. It is becoming clear to me that the only theological conversation a Christian and an atheist can productively engage in is whether God exists. That is not this thread.

 

[Spock]

The greater good is precisely the opportunity that person receives to unite their suffering with Christ.

How can a newborn with a painful condition offer up his suffering? And how could an animal do it? I know that you do not wish to contemplate the animal, but maybe you will think about it.

Of course, I realize that this is not reasonable to an atheist. It is becoming clear to me that the only theological conversation a Christian and an atheist can productively engage in is whether God exists. That is not this thread.

I think there could be other questions, too. The problem is to find a common starting ground.

 

[pnewton]

How can a newborn with a painful condition offer up his suffering? And how could an animal do it? I know that you do not wish to contemplate the animal, but maybe you will think about it.

They can not, of course, but that is hardly relevant to the challenge that an adult faces. Just like the path of the person of faith is different than that of the atheist. The original point of this thread, is understanding pain from a theist perspective.

 

[FaithBuild18]

How can a newborn with a painful condition offer up his suffering? And how could an animal do it? I know that you do not wish to contemplate the animal, but maybe you will think about it.

I think there could be other questions, too. The problem is to find a common starting ground.

I didn’t read everything that was said before this. But why does pain have to be intrinsically good or evil? It has its uses. A newborn with a painful condition alerts the parents that there is a problem going on inside that body. The same can be said for animals. And certainly it can have beneficial spiritual effects for those who are spiritual. But of course it can be abused, like in torture. Why can’t pain just be something that exists? Simply because you or others don’t like it? Well I don’t like spiders but that doesn’t make them evil.

And if you aren’t saying it’s evil than I apologize ha.

 

[FaithBuild18]

How can a newborn with a painful condition offer up his suffering? And how could an animal do it? I know that you do not wish to contemplate the animal, but maybe you will think about it.

I think there could be other questions, too. The problem is to find a common starting ground.

Must all pain be good in order for you to consider that pain might not be evil? Why can’t pain just be something that exists rather than being something intrinsically good or intrinsically evil? Simply because you don’t like it? I don’t like spiders but I don’t consider them inherently evil.

An animal and a newborn don’t understand or have the awareness or the ability to rationalize what pain is the way you do. It more or less responds unknowingly to the external stimuli it experiences.

 

[Spock]

They can not, of course, but that is hardly relevant to the challenge that an adult faces. Just like the path of the person of faith is different than that of the atheist. The original point of this thread, is understanding pain from a theist perspective.

Indeed. From the atheist’s perspective pain and suffering is part of nature, whether it has some useful (warning) effects, or not. However, for the theist the unnecessary pain and suffering should simply not exist - because a benevolent God should only allow pain if it is logically necessary to achieve some “greater good”…

Must all pain be good in order for you to consider that pain might not be evil?

Of course. To actively cause or passively allow unnecessary pain is the problem. That is what cannot be reconciled with a benevolent God.

Why can’t pain just be something that exists rather than being something intrinsically good or intrinsically evil? Simply because you don’t like it?

Nobody likes it. Everyone tries to avoid it.

An animal and a newborn don’t understand or have the awareness or the ability to rationalize what pain is the way you do. It more or less responds unknowingly to the external stimuli it experiences.

You used the buzz-word: “rationalize”! Unnecessary pain cannot be explained, it must be rationalized away. And that is exactly what is happening in every thread dealing with this problem. Here is a link which shows the diferent methods of trying to explain away the problem: link…

 

[Hokomai]

A third solution to the problem of evil is to deny the existence of evil. This is an easy out for the moral relativist, but a very hard road for all who watched the fall of the Twin Tower on 9-11. If you remember the mood of the country that day, it was a bad day for moral relativism. The atheist activists choose to say silent will spontaneous religious expression was shown at all public levels.

The main religious expression was planned, not spontaneous. it consisted of four hijackings and three successful attacks on building, and one failure. All carried out by people who appear from all reports to have been genuine in their belief that they were carrying out God’s will.

 

[pnewton]

Indeed. From the atheist’s perspective pain and suffering is part of nature, whether it has some useful (warning) effects, or not. However, for the theist the unnecessary pain and suffering should simply not exist - because a benevolent God should only allow pain if it is logically necessary to achieve some “greater good”…

Yes, if you believe there is such a thing as unnecessary pain. I think you are right, in a sense. It was never necessary that the world should be distorted and pain and suffering enter the world. However, it was necessary that such a choice be available for mankind for God to have independent wills other than his own. God’s omnipotence can not mean he can do things that are logically inconsistent, like create other “I’s” than Himself and at the same time force His will on them. Man can not be both free and not free, in the same way, at the same time.

 

[pnewton]

The main religious expression was planned, not spontaneous. it consisted of four hijackings and three successful attacks on building, and one failure. All carried out by people who appear from all reports to have been genuine in their belief that they were carrying out God’s will.

That would be a judgment and one that I am not willing to make. Personally, I do not believe God motivates hatred. It is easy though for us to deceive ourselves into believing God supports those sins or passions we hold independent of him, whether it be that God wants to to blow up a bunch of women because my own heart is filled with hate, or that God is a Houston Texan fan because it promotes suffering.

 

[Spock]

Yes, if you believe there is such a thing as unnecessary pain. I think you are right, in a sense.

I do not mean “necessary” in the absolute sense. When we look at pain, in general, there are many instances when the pain serves a useful purpose. If one would not be warned (with increasing pain) that putting one’s hand in a fire is “detrimental” to one’s health, then we would burn to death. So, no one should decry pain in general. Of course, this “warning method” is very haphazard, it shows no sign of having been “designed” on purpose. For example, tooth ache is excruciating, even though one can live without teeth. On the other hand, cancer, in it first stages has no pain at all, when it would be very helpful to diagnose it early. So, even to argue that pain, as a beneficial warning system can be attributed to a benevolent God comes to nonsense, when examining the details.

But that is not all. If we look at “all” the pain, then most of it serves no purpose at all. I know, you might be tempted to argue that we cannot discern any purpose. Let me hope you will not take that route. I am sick and tired of seeing that “argument” - which is essentially a fallcy - argument from ignorance. The existence of some pain can be justified, if the pain is a logical prerequisite to some greater good, which means that without that pain the greater good cannot be achieved, God’s omnipotence notwithstanding. But that is all. Without such “compansation” the existence of pain cannot be reconciled with a benevolent deity.

It was never necessary that the world should be distorted and pain and suffering enter the world. However, it was necessary that such a choice be available for mankind for God to have independent wills other than his own.

Why would it be? A huge part of pain has nothing to do with our actions. And why should we have an independent will, when the “aim” is to abandon our own will and align it with God’s wiil? Logically speaking, this is sheer nonsense. To give someone an ability, and then “encourage” (or even demand) not to use it?

God’s omnipotence can not mean he can do things that are logically inconsistent, like create other “I’s” than Himself and at the same time force His will on them. Man can not be both free and not free, in the same way, at the same time.

Well, this is another question. Free “will”, that is the “will, desire, want, intend” is pretty much impossible to limit - unless one undergoes a huge brainwashing. What we “want” to do, is not important. What we can DO, is where the problem starts. Our freedom of action is what is partially too large (when it comes to cause harm) ans partially too little, when it comes to alleviate the consequences of harm.

 

[pnewton]

But that is not all. If we look at “all” the pain, then most of it serves no purpose at all. I know, you might be tempted to argue that we cannot discern any purpose. Let me hope you will not take that route. I am sick and tired of seeing that “argument” - which is essentially a fallcy - argument from ignorance.

Then you are at the wrong place and I am the wrong person. I do not accept your premise that it is a fallacy to reject the notion that all things are knowable. Indeed, there are many things that we can not know. For me, the fallacy is in assuming that no purpose exists because we can not discern a purpose. That is because I accept the existence of a transcendent God. The reasons for that I will not argue with and atheist on this thread.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Indeed. From the atheist’s perspective pain and suffering is part of nature, whether it has some useful (warning) effects, or not. However, for the theist the unnecessary pain and suffering should simply not exist - because a benevolent God should only allow pain if it is logically necessary to achieve some “greater good”…

Of course. To actively cause or passively allow unnecessary pain is the problem. That is what cannot be reconciled with a benevolent God.

You used the buzz-word: “rationalize”! Unnecessary pain cannot be explained, it must be rationalized away. And that is exactly what is happening in every thread dealing with this problem. Here is a link which shows the diferent methods of trying to explain away the problem: link…

From a non-theist point of view, you write with the utmost assurance that what you perceive is absolute, and that our intelligence and senses are at its maximized evolutionary potential. The Universe does not have to abide by the logic of man. We did not create the Universe, it created us. Can an ant perceive the vastness of humankind? Absolutely not. They can make no distinguishing difference between a human house and any other mound of matter that gets in their way. Yet we certainly exist. So what makes you so sure that we can perceive the entirety of existence? I’m not saying we can nor am I saying that we can’t, I’m simply saying to take apart this question is beyond our abilities. To suggest that everything in existence must be in accordance with our logic is in itself illogical.

Nobody likes it. Everyone tries to avoid it.

That kind of is not true. But I do see where you’re coming from. There is an instinct in all life to avoid painful situations, which is basically the current understanding of the purpose of having such neuronal experiences, to alert the organism what is of danger.

Again you assume that human understanding is absolute and flawless. Why does universal dislike of something signify that it serves no higher purpose in our lives? Non-religiously, it is entirely possible that all pain is necessary, we just lack either the scientific knowledge or even the comprehension, not necessarily at the will of God but because of the nature of evolution, to understand its purpose.

 

[Spock]

Then you are at the wrong place and I am the wrong person. I do not accept your premise that it is a fallacy to reject the notion that all things are knowable. Indeed, there are many things that we can not know.

If we don’t know it - fully, totally, then we must go by what we do know. We use the duck-principle: it is looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck it is most probably a duck and not an elephant. Not having full knowledge is not the same as having no knowledge at all. If someone apporaches to with a bloody knife and a scowl on his face, you don’t KNOW what his intentions are. It may be that there is a movie being filmed and he is just an actor. May be, right? Would you bet your life on it? What would you do in such a case? (Not a rhetorical question.)

For me, the fallacy is in assuming that no purpose exists because we can not discern a purpose. That is because I accept the existence of a transcendent God. The reasons for that I will not argue with and atheist on this thread.

I am aware of that. But if the evidence points to the opposite direction, then you just exhibited blind faith. I also know that believers have no problem with blind faith. However, if they do, they should accept and acknowledge that this is what they do, and admit that they reject reason for the sake of faith.

 

[Spock]

From a non-theist point of view, you write with the utmost assurance that what you perceive is absolute, and that our intelligence and senses are at its maximized evolutionary potential.

Hell, no. I am aware that I am not omniscient, but that does not mean that I know nothing. Please read my post above for the details.

 

[pnewton]

If we don’t know it - fully, totally, then we must go by what we do know. We use the duck-principle: it is looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck it is most probably a duck and not an elephant. Not having full knowledge is not the same as having no knowledge at all.

I am well aware of that and never claimed otherwise.

But if the evidence points to the opposite direction, then you just exhibited blind faith.

It doesn’t and I didn’t, I will not argue theism with you. No more baiting please.

 

[Spirithound]

How can a newborn with a painful condition offer up his suffering?

Good question. Having been an infant in what probably was a very painful condition, I cannot remember… One viable option is that God generally does accept the suffering of infants as a prayer. Children, up to a certain age tend to simply accept their condition, whatever it is, as normal. In this sense, the temporal qualities promised in Romans 5:3-5, perseverance, character, hope, will be present in long-suffering children, and by extension, the spiritual qualities attendant on those, namely, nearness to God. Another option is that the child is, in some rudimentary way, able to make the offering him- or herself.

 

[Spock]

Good question. Having been an infant in what probably was a very painful condition, I cannot remember… One viable option is that God generally does accept the suffering of infants as a prayer. Children, up to a certain age tend to simply accept their condition, whatever it is, as normal. In this sense, the temporal qualities promised in Romans 5:3-5, perseverance, character, hope, will be present in long-suffering children, and by extension, the spiritual qualities attendant on those, namely, nearness to God. Another option is that the child is, in some rudimentary way, able to make the offering him- or herself.

Really farfecthed. Offering up a sacrifice is a conscious decision, which cannot be made infants. And infants are pretty “vocal” showing their displeasure, they do not “accept” their condition.

You know: these “maybe” types of arguments do not lead anywhere. You could also say that “maybe” atheists also believe in God - subsonciously. Or “maybe” everyone is a Catholic, they just don’t know about it (by baptism of desire) even if they are unaware of that desire.

Oh, well. Running out of rational responses will inevitably bring forth the irrational ones. Thanks for the contribution.

 

[Spirithound]

You know: these “maybe” types of arguments do not lead anywhere. You could also say that “maybe” atheists also believe in God - subsonciously. Or “maybe” everyone is a Catholic, they just don’t know about it (by baptism of desire) even if they are unaware of that desire.

 

[Alicia05]

Hi!

I don’t know if anyone already suggested this, but I would like to suggest a debate I just saw that deals with this topic called Theodicy, God and Suffering: A Debate Between Dinesh D’Souza and Bart Ehrman It’s really worthwhile, although it is over an hour!!

Here’s the link:
youtube.com/watch?v=Isg6Kx-3xdI