I don't believe suffering = evil. Evil typically results in suffering but we need much of what we call suffering to keep the world balanced. Suffering is a feature. I also like the idea that evil isn't created by God but evil is the absence or rejection of God.
And to add one more layer on this, in Physics, everything resorts to entropy. It takes energy to create order. Suffering is also largely driven by entropy. We mitigate suffering by adding energy. So, without something providing energy to create order, entropy is the natural state.
This is why I, personally, ascribe to a modified simulation theory of existence. We are instantiated in a life to grow and mature, basically overcoming entropy towards greater order. Instead of a Heaven of infinite reward, we learn lessons and return to another instantiation. In this case, the suffering is still a feature and the goal is to learn how to reduce it by reducing entropy. (Frankly, I find the idea of Christian heaven dismally boring)
I've got an essay scheduld to come out in the next month titled "Reincarnation Sounds Awesome." which looks deeper into that topic as well but sufice to say, Entropy is the foundation of physics, suffering is a form of entropy, and I think we are here to help add energy to overcome entropy.
I disagree. The problem of why God would allow suffering is much older than Christianity. The book of Job deals with this theme almost exclusively and it’s hundreds of years older than Christ himself, much less modern Christians.
The question of why God would create a world knowing he’d need to sacrifice his Son to redeem humanity is a separate but also interesting question. Lots to say about that, but to start, it’s clear God likes a good story. It’s the “greatest story ever told” for a reason.
Interesting thoughts. Agreed suffering can lead to balance / benefits, but there does seem to be gratuitous suffering in which there is no conceivable benefit, which is the tricky issue for theists. It's also a good point re: entropy, but the question remains, why would a good God setup a world in which everything resorts to entropy in the first place? Sounds like your simulation theory answers the question nicely - the entropy is the point.
The reincarnation piece sounds great, excited to read it.
I've dealt with that problem with God but it assumes that a 'perfect' entity wouldn't have suffering. That's a very modern Christian creation starting with how they view Genesis 1 and 2. Though the Jews don't interpret that story the same way. That view also tangles up Christians specifically regarding the law and then the death of Jesus. What God would create a world, who, through his omniscence, knew he'd have to kill his son to redeem a creation because he put a test that he knew they would fail.
Insightful and thoughtful take, though I have to disagree. The finitude of suffering does not diminish its value. It only diminishes its temporal significance, not its moral or spiritual significance. On the contrary, suffering is of immense value in the Christian faith. We innately feel the, as C.S. Lewis puts it, "unnaturalness" of human death and suffering. That's why it's everyone's greatest hurdle to faith. Christ specifically entered into our sufferings--he wept at our suffering. While the Glory to come will change how we view suffering, in some sense, suffering has to do with every piece of life outside of renewal.
That said, I think an important response to Alex O'Connor is the acknowledgment that most Christians get animal death wrong, viewing it as something post-fall, which brings up numerous claims on animal morality, animal souls, etc. In reality, and clear in Jewish and Catholic thought, animal death was always a part of the hierarchical created order. Lions have always been carnivorous, bees have always stung. There are many reasons for this, but the question for Alex becomes, "If animals have no souls, and no claim to immortality like humans, can they really be said to suffer?"
Important point I forgot to add: in 2 Corinthians and in Romans, Paul is writing for the comfort of the saints, who are suffering intensely. I'm not sure that we can take his writings intended to encourage those in the faith and so use them equally for apologetic reasoning
Great points. I agree the finitude of suffering doesn't diminish its value as you've defined it, but I think most skeptics think of the "value" of suffering as solely related to utilitarian considerations - i.e., its temporal significance, so that's how I mainly talk about it here. I argue in the last section that suffering's moral significance is still real and something we should care about, despite its lack of temporal significance. So yes, I agree the finitude of suffering doesn't diminish its value, unless you define value as temporal significance, which I think most skeptics do.
From a spiritual perspective, I agree with Lewis that we feel the unnaturalness of death and suffering and that it's key to our experience as Christians, but for skeptics, this admission is nonsensical - why couldn't God have just setup a system without the pain and suffering in the first place? I agree there's a spiritual reason for suffering but for most skeptics I think that's a nonstarter if you haven't addressed the temporal significance first.
Interesting thoughts on animal death and honestly something i need to look into more. I've seen him respond to the "animals don't really suffer" line with something like "if I were to strangle a dog in front of you, would you want me to stop?" It's an intense example but it gets at a valid criticism I think - if animals don't really suffer, why do we have such strong moral intuitions that say otherwise? I think it's much easier and more natural to admit that animals do suffer, but that ultimately their suffering is redeemed in the New Earth same as humans, but again I need to look into this point more.
You definitely addressed the significance problem well for those addressing the causes and effects of suffering, though I think the answer may be different for the experience of suffering. No matter which way we spin it, the eternal weight of glory defense is incomplete. We all know suffering has value and significance in some sense, and wherever that value and significance comes from, it needs to be addressed, even if the temporal significance is ultimately zero. Perhaps splitting these types and forms is essential at the beginning of addressing the problem of suffering.
I'm also not sure that temporal significance is the only form of utilitarian significance, but I'd need to think about that one a bit more.
That analogy of strangling a dog is one I've not heard and difficult, though my initial thought is that a large part of the wrongness we feel in that situation comes from the disordered nature of the action, which does indeed stem from the fall. There is no reason to strangle the dog other than to destroy (unless the dog itself is harmful). The dog's suffering, then, is also purposeless, not serving the creation God designed. This doesn't solve for our disgust at the pain the dog is feeling itself, other than an animals experience of pain may be different than a human's (not sure that that is correct, though). Interesting points to think about.
I don't believe suffering = evil. Evil typically results in suffering but we need much of what we call suffering to keep the world balanced. Suffering is a feature. I also like the idea that evil isn't created by God but evil is the absence or rejection of God.
And to add one more layer on this, in Physics, everything resorts to entropy. It takes energy to create order. Suffering is also largely driven by entropy. We mitigate suffering by adding energy. So, without something providing energy to create order, entropy is the natural state.
This is why I, personally, ascribe to a modified simulation theory of existence. We are instantiated in a life to grow and mature, basically overcoming entropy towards greater order. Instead of a Heaven of infinite reward, we learn lessons and return to another instantiation. In this case, the suffering is still a feature and the goal is to learn how to reduce it by reducing entropy. (Frankly, I find the idea of Christian heaven dismally boring)
I've got an essay scheduld to come out in the next month titled "Reincarnation Sounds Awesome." which looks deeper into that topic as well but sufice to say, Entropy is the foundation of physics, suffering is a form of entropy, and I think we are here to help add energy to overcome entropy.
I disagree. The problem of why God would allow suffering is much older than Christianity. The book of Job deals with this theme almost exclusively and it’s hundreds of years older than Christ himself, much less modern Christians.
The question of why God would create a world knowing he’d need to sacrifice his Son to redeem humanity is a separate but also interesting question. Lots to say about that, but to start, it’s clear God likes a good story. It’s the “greatest story ever told” for a reason.
Interesting thoughts. Agreed suffering can lead to balance / benefits, but there does seem to be gratuitous suffering in which there is no conceivable benefit, which is the tricky issue for theists. It's also a good point re: entropy, but the question remains, why would a good God setup a world in which everything resorts to entropy in the first place? Sounds like your simulation theory answers the question nicely - the entropy is the point.
The reincarnation piece sounds great, excited to read it.
I've dealt with that problem with God but it assumes that a 'perfect' entity wouldn't have suffering. That's a very modern Christian creation starting with how they view Genesis 1 and 2. Though the Jews don't interpret that story the same way. That view also tangles up Christians specifically regarding the law and then the death of Jesus. What God would create a world, who, through his omniscence, knew he'd have to kill his son to redeem a creation because he put a test that he knew they would fail.
Insightful and thoughtful take, though I have to disagree. The finitude of suffering does not diminish its value. It only diminishes its temporal significance, not its moral or spiritual significance. On the contrary, suffering is of immense value in the Christian faith. We innately feel the, as C.S. Lewis puts it, "unnaturalness" of human death and suffering. That's why it's everyone's greatest hurdle to faith. Christ specifically entered into our sufferings--he wept at our suffering. While the Glory to come will change how we view suffering, in some sense, suffering has to do with every piece of life outside of renewal.
That said, I think an important response to Alex O'Connor is the acknowledgment that most Christians get animal death wrong, viewing it as something post-fall, which brings up numerous claims on animal morality, animal souls, etc. In reality, and clear in Jewish and Catholic thought, animal death was always a part of the hierarchical created order. Lions have always been carnivorous, bees have always stung. There are many reasons for this, but the question for Alex becomes, "If animals have no souls, and no claim to immortality like humans, can they really be said to suffer?"
Very thought provoking article!
Important point I forgot to add: in 2 Corinthians and in Romans, Paul is writing for the comfort of the saints, who are suffering intensely. I'm not sure that we can take his writings intended to encourage those in the faith and so use them equally for apologetic reasoning
Great points. I agree the finitude of suffering doesn't diminish its value as you've defined it, but I think most skeptics think of the "value" of suffering as solely related to utilitarian considerations - i.e., its temporal significance, so that's how I mainly talk about it here. I argue in the last section that suffering's moral significance is still real and something we should care about, despite its lack of temporal significance. So yes, I agree the finitude of suffering doesn't diminish its value, unless you define value as temporal significance, which I think most skeptics do.
From a spiritual perspective, I agree with Lewis that we feel the unnaturalness of death and suffering and that it's key to our experience as Christians, but for skeptics, this admission is nonsensical - why couldn't God have just setup a system without the pain and suffering in the first place? I agree there's a spiritual reason for suffering but for most skeptics I think that's a nonstarter if you haven't addressed the temporal significance first.
Interesting thoughts on animal death and honestly something i need to look into more. I've seen him respond to the "animals don't really suffer" line with something like "if I were to strangle a dog in front of you, would you want me to stop?" It's an intense example but it gets at a valid criticism I think - if animals don't really suffer, why do we have such strong moral intuitions that say otherwise? I think it's much easier and more natural to admit that animals do suffer, but that ultimately their suffering is redeemed in the New Earth same as humans, but again I need to look into this point more.
You definitely addressed the significance problem well for those addressing the causes and effects of suffering, though I think the answer may be different for the experience of suffering. No matter which way we spin it, the eternal weight of glory defense is incomplete. We all know suffering has value and significance in some sense, and wherever that value and significance comes from, it needs to be addressed, even if the temporal significance is ultimately zero. Perhaps splitting these types and forms is essential at the beginning of addressing the problem of suffering.
I'm also not sure that temporal significance is the only form of utilitarian significance, but I'd need to think about that one a bit more.
That analogy of strangling a dog is one I've not heard and difficult, though my initial thought is that a large part of the wrongness we feel in that situation comes from the disordered nature of the action, which does indeed stem from the fall. There is no reason to strangle the dog other than to destroy (unless the dog itself is harmful). The dog's suffering, then, is also purposeless, not serving the creation God designed. This doesn't solve for our disgust at the pain the dog is feeling itself, other than an animals experience of pain may be different than a human's (not sure that that is correct, though). Interesting points to think about.