The “naturalist” Problem of Suffering

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think there are both atheists and theists that understand suffering.

First that life is pain, which is obvious.

Second the Indigenous saying that you dont own the land but it's the land that owns you.

We think of pain in a backyard sense that we think we can control it, but the reality remains, its pain that controls us.

Therin the understanding lays in acceptance.

That's pretty dismal. Not much spiritual revelation there.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What's the most mysterious is there are people saying pain and suffering isn't real and it's just chemicals and electricity.

For something not real, the intensity and unbearability is impossible to ignore when it occurs.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In this context I am talking about physical suffering, like the pain that you felt in the surgery room……… most organism wouldn’t have felt any pain, in order to have a selective benefit you don’t need to feel conscious pain (complex mechanism) all you need is to react and avoid pain (simple mechanism) … Natural Selection is unlikely to select complex useless mechanisms over simple and useful mechanisms

Most organisms wouldn't have felt any pain? How do you know that? Ever stepped on your cat's tail?

 

[Audie]

Suffering is easy it comes free with the human condition. No god needed.

It's a package deal.
If a person doesn t like the deal they can leave.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's pretty dismal. Not much spiritual revelation there.

Not really. It's the understanding itself that helps soften the blow whenever it flares up.

It's like that proverbial red hot ball of iron in your throat that can never be dislodged or removed.

 

[Audie]

What's the most mysterious is there are people saying pain and suffering isn't real and it's just chemicals and electricity.

For something not real, the intensity and unbearability is impossible to ignore when it occurs.

Who sez chemistry n electricity isn't real?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's only a problem if you're claiming that your god is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. Since no one claims that nature has these attributes, I don't see how naturalism is a problem for atheists.

Well then read the OP and you´ll see why is it a problem for atheists.

Absolutely, wrong!

Atheists do not think of "nature" as being intelligent, directed, or anything other than just "the way things are." That's all. "The way things are."

It doesn't aim anywhere (evolution has no goal in mind). It doesn't know anything (things work, things don't, things live, things die, move on).

Your problem is that you cannot free yourself from the 100% unsupported notion that there is something (some "cause" guided by some "reason") that makes things happen. That's wrong. If you could jettison that silly idea, you'd have no trouble at all seeing why your whole premise is nonsense.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Who sez chemistry n electricity isn't real?

The argument that all sensations are neurological based and generated within the brain upon receiving the signals and is just a mental phenomenon with substance.

 

[crossfire]

This has to be one of the stupidest arguments yet.

Suffering is not a biologically inherited characteristic of an organism. As such, evolution has nothing to do with it. Evolution is driven by what leads to the greatest reproductive success of the species. Anything else is beside the point.

Sexual reproduction developed as a response to stress. (suffering) In species that have both asexual and sexual reproduction, asexual reproduction is favored during good times (non stress,) whereas sexual reproduction is resorted to during bad times (under stress.)

 

[Polymath257]

What's the most mysterious is there are people saying pain and suffering isn't real and it's just chemicals and electricity.

For something not real, the intensity and unbearability is impossible to ignore when it occurs.

It *is* real. AND it is also chemicals and electricity. Remember that chemicals and electricity are real. Also remember that our consciousness is based on those same chemicals and electrical phenomena.

Part of being 'unbearable' is our attitude towards it, though. if we see the pain as a necessary step in our development, then it becomes more tolerable. if we see it as unnecessary, it becomes unbearable. As with everything else, our expectations color our perception.

 

[Polymath257]

The argument that all sensations are neurological based and generated within the brain upon receiving the signals and is just a mental phenomenon with substance.

And how does that imply that the sensations are not real? Yes, they are generated in the brain (you won't feel pain if no pain signal gets to the brain) and yes they are neurologically based. But those sensations, as induced by the neural activity, are just as real as temperature or pressure (which are also collective properties).

 

[stvdv]

The problem of suffering is perhaps the most sound and difficult argument against the existence of God, after all why would God allow for suffering? Theist have proposed many answers, but such answers usually have a high price to pay, and quite honestly I(as a theist) haven’t seen a “good solution” for this problem

Strange

I see no problem at all with suffering (as a Theist), it's a perfect fit in God's Creation

 

[QuestioningMind]

Well then read the OP and you´ll see why is it a problem for atheists.

I read it and the fact that atheists can't explain suffering isn't a problem in the least. And it's only a problem for theists who claim that their god is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. Only those who claim that their god is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving have an obligation to explain why their god allows suffering.

Why would you think otherwise?

 

[Nakosis]

In this context I am talking about physical suffering, like the pain that you felt in the surgery room……… most organism wouldn’t have felt any pain, in order to have a selective benefit you don’t need to feel conscious pain (complex mechanism) all you need is to react and avoid pain (simple mechanism) … Natural Selection is unlikely to select complex useless mechanisms over simple and useful mechanisms

Ok, but if we are talking physical pain, pain seems a useful mechanism as it makes us aware of a physical problem with the body. So we know is physically happening to the body that normally shouldn't be.

 

[Clara Tea]

The “atheist” Problem of Suffering

The problem of suffering is perhaps the most sound and difficult argument against the existence of God, after all why would God allow for suffering? Theist have proposed many answers, but such answers usually have a high price to pay, and quite honestly I(as a theist) haven’t seen a “good solution” for this problem

However Atheists / naturalists have the same problem, they can’t explain suffering ether, so I guess suffering is simply a strange thing that nobody cant explain.

Why Atheists cant explain Suffering

Well suffering is a complex and useless mechanism so why would it evolve by natural selection? It is true that NS is not the only naturalistic option but none of the alternatives that I am aware of seems to solve the problem.

Reacting Vs Suffering ​

For the purpose of this argument, do not confuse “reacting” and “suffering”Almost all organism react to avoid harmful situations, for example sometimes plants produce a poisonous substance when someone is trying to pull down a tree, clams would hide underground, spiders would bite you, etc, this is a very useful mechanism because it helps organisms to survive and reproduce.

However there is a big difference between “reacting” (like most organisms do ) and real and actual suffering (where only complex organisms do) a plant doesn’t really suffer, it doesn’t really feel pain it simply reacts………….too suffer is a complex mental state that doesn’t offer any selective advantage.

So the argument is

1 Complex + Useless mechanism are not expected to evolve

2 suffering (as oppose to reacting) is a complex and useless mechanism

3 therefore suffering is not expected to evolve./ therefore atheist have the same problem than theists


Sure as a naturalist you can appeal to many excuses, perhaps there is “something” that we don’t know yet about, that would explain suffering, but theist can use the same excuse, “maybe” there is a good explanation for why we have suffering.

RE: EXPLAIN PAIN: Atheists don't believe in God, so don't have to explain anything. When one commits to a belief, they "could" try to explain it (or not).

 

[sayak83]

The “atheist” Problem of Suffering

The problem of suffering is perhaps the most sound and difficult argument against the existence of God, after all why would God allow for suffering? Theist have proposed many answers, but such answers usually have a high price to pay, and quite honestly I(as a theist) haven’t seen a “good solution” for this problem

However Atheists / naturalists have the same problem, they can’t explain suffering ether, so I guess suffering is simply a strange thing that nobody cant explain.

Why Atheists cant explain Suffering

Well suffering is a complex and useless mechanism so why would it evolve by natural selection? It is true that NS is not the only naturalistic option but none of the alternatives that I am aware of seems to solve the problem.

Reacting Vs Suffering ​

For the purpose of this argument, do not confuse “reacting” and “suffering”Almost all organism react to avoid harmful situations, for example sometimes plants produce a poisonous substance when someone is trying to pull down a tree, clams would hide underground, spiders would bite you, etc, this is a very useful mechanism because it helps organisms to survive and reproduce.

However there is a big difference between “reacting” (like most organisms do ) and real and actual suffering (where only complex organisms do) a plant doesn’t really suffer, it doesn’t really feel pain it simply reacts………….too suffer is a complex mental state that doesn’t offer any selective advantage.

So the argument is

1 Complex + Useless mechanism are not expected to evolve

2 suffering (as oppose to reacting) is a complex and useless mechanism

3 therefore suffering is not expected to evolve./ therefore atheist have the same problem than theists


Sure as a naturalist you can appeal to many excuses, perhaps there is “something” that we don’t know yet about, that would explain suffering, but theist can use the same excuse, “maybe” there is a good explanation for why we have suffering.

Actually this the sub-issue within a much bigger problem.

Why would evolutionary mechanism lead to development of beings that have first person experiential awareness fields? What does having inner subjective experiences add to the processing of external stimuli through the usual neuro-chemical pathways of the brain and the nervous system?

 

[Clara Tea]

Ok, but if we are talking physical pain, pain seems a useful mechanism as it makes us aware of a physical problem with the body. So we know is physically happening to the body that normally shouldn't be.

Pain alerts us to problems. Yet, some suffer with incurable cancer then die (with no hope). If there was a God, why make people suffer (physical and emotional pain, and emotionally pained loved ones)?

Jesus didn't want to die. On the cross Jesus asked God "why hath thou foresaken me?" So, it was God who decided to allow Romans to kill Jesus. God could have allowed Jesus to use his amazing powers to blind his attackers (or vaporize them off of the earth). Yet, God did want Jesus to die, and did want Jesus to suffer.

Could it be that God wanted to teach Jesus about the human condition, and the only real way to teach about pain and humiliation and hopelessness is to force Jesus to experience it.

Why, then, does God force us to have pain, poop our pants, lay in our poop for a day, in the hospital, and deal with the inevitable slow death? Perhaps humans are supposed to learn pain to gain compassion for others?

What good would an angel be who is not compassionate? Satan had been a perfect angel, but likely had no compassion at all. Perhaps God had learned his lesson with Satan to teach his other souls/angels, what pain is, and what others must be going through.

Is pain on earth a forewarning of eternal pain of hell. Is that a warning of what is to come if we disobey God? Would we heed God if no one was in pain?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Suffering is a spandrel based on the requirement to have pain.

'Spandrel' is a word I only knew as a construction term. Thanks for teaching me it's biological meaning!!

 

[AlexanderG]

The “atheist” Problem of Suffering

The problem of suffering is perhaps the most sound and difficult argument against the existence of God, after all why would God allow for suffering? Theist have proposed many answers, but such answers usually have a high price to pay, and quite honestly I(as a theist) haven’t seen a “good solution” for this problem

However Atheists / naturalists have the same problem, they can’t explain suffering ether, so I guess suffering is simply a strange thing that nobody cant explain.

Why Atheists cant explain Suffering

Well suffering is a complex and useless mechanism so why would it evolve by natural selection? It is true that NS is not the only naturalistic option but none of the alternatives that I am aware of seems to solve the problem.

Reacting Vs Suffering ​

For the purpose of this argument, do not confuse “reacting” and “suffering”Almost all organism react to avoid harmful situations, for example sometimes plants produce a poisonous substance when someone is trying to pull down a tree, clams would hide underground, spiders would bite you, etc, this is a very useful mechanism because it helps organisms to survive and reproduce.

However there is a big difference between “reacting” (like most organisms do ) and real and actual suffering (where only complex organisms do) a plant doesn’t really suffer, it doesn’t really feel pain it simply reacts………….too suffer is a complex mental state that doesn’t offer any selective advantage.

So the argument is

1 Complex + Useless mechanism are not expected to evolve

2 suffering (as oppose to reacting) is a complex and useless mechanism

3 therefore suffering is not expected to evolve./ therefore atheist have the same problem than theists


Sure as a naturalist you can appeal to many excuses, perhaps there is “something” that we don’t know yet about, that would explain suffering, but theist can use the same excuse, “maybe” there is a good explanation for why we have suffering.

I reject your 2nd premise. Suffering has a clear evolutionary advantage, whether physical or emotional. It is a way to incentivize us to act in ways that minimize harm to our bodies or to slow down and heal, and minimize social anguish. This leads to greater health and greater group cooperation, which confers a survival advantage.

Like many evolutionary traits, pain is a sloppy trait that doesn't always manifest perfectly. Chronic pain, anxiety disorders, neuropathy, and wasting illnesses are forms of suffering that manifest inappropriately or in a way that doesn't actually help us live better. However, the net effect of our capacity to feel pain is still positive, and that's all evolution cares about.

This is all very, very easily explained by naturalism.

Some other imperfect over-clocked traits include:
1. Our intense evolutionary urge to find babies appealing bleeds over into other animal species that we find cute for no beneficial reason.
2. Our hyperactive tendency to see agency in mindless processes was beneficial in avoiding predators, but bleeds over into thinking there are monsters under the bed, spirits in the trees, gods controlling the weather, etc.
3. Our fight/flight response bleeds over into social situations, causing useless panic, sweating, trembling, stuttering during public performances.

 

[idea]

Suffering is just a mechanism to point us to the fact that something is wrong, needs addressing, or needs to be changed.

Exactly. Suffering is a survival mechanism - if you couldn't feel your hand burning, you wouldn't remove it from the stove.