This was great. I’ve been chronically ill my entire life. I have suffered a lot in my 49 years, physically and emotionally. Without that suffering, I wouldn’t be able to appreciate the joys of my life. I appreciate little things other people don’t notice because they haven’t suffered as much as I have. My suffering made me the man I am today.
There is suffering in the world because Satan rules the world. God gave us free will because He loves us and doesn’t want us to be forced into anything. He gives us the opportunity to hear His word and make a choice for ourselves.
I was only saved 4 years ago, but I know realize that God was with me the entire time, especially the worst times. As bad as things got, they could have been much worse.
I’d like to share these articles so you can see what He’s done for me.
It’s interesting because for me suffering was precisely the reason I became a believer. In the face of mortality enduring suffering without a greater cause just seemed meaningless. Thank you for the article, I enjoyed thoroughly enjoyed it.
This one stretched me in a good way. I am much more acquainted and comfortable with C.S. Lewis's argument in 'Mere Christianity,' that consciousness of evil/suffering proves that such a thing as perfect goodness exists. Much the same as our consciousness of darkness proves that light exists.
But maybe you're not a C.S. Lewis fan at all. And maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree. Lol.
Okay, so I have one major question about the framework you used. If suffering is an element of consciousness, how would you explain the Christian description of consciousness in the Garden of Eden? If going with a Biblical framework, we see that before sin, God called everything He created 'Good.' And yet, clearly He also demonstrated preference by creating humanity in His own image. (Genesis 1:26-28).
But in His preference of humankind over every other creation did not come with suffering for Him. Everything was still called 'Good.' And as far as I can tell Adam and Eve's preference for each other over every other creation did not mean that they suffered either.
It was only when they preferred something that God did not prefer for them that suffering began (Genesis 3).
Or at least... That's my church-y understanding of everything 😂
Your second point on the Garden of Eden and a world before original sin is extremely interesting.
Let me say before I continue that nearly everything I try to write, I will attempt to keep decoupled from any particular worldview. Some things I write might be able to be used as an apologetic, but that was not its intended cause, although it might have that effect.
My goal is to be coarse sandpaper that could eat away at and eventually shape a more coherent worldview for anyone reading something I put out.
Okay, back to the Garden of Eden we go.
I have no issues with the idea that God could have the ability to perceive, understand, and feel suffering without the lived experience of it.
Your point gets extremely interesting when it comes to Adam and Eve. I could probably write a whole essay on this point that you made and the rest of the story in Genesis and the introduction of suffering. @Elizabeth Hayashi
Wow, I definitely respect this attempt to keep your writing decoupled from any particular worldview! I can see how this would be extremely challenging but also very enlightening, both to yourself and to others. Incredible!
In response to both of your replies, I agree that C.S. Lewis' argument is based on the presupposition that objective morality exists. Although, it is worth noting that before making the aforementioned argument, he also sets up an argument for objective morality.
But would you say that you presuppose that suffering is a built in facet of consciousness? Is there any space to say that there could have existed consciousness without suffering at one point of time? If not for God, than for humanity?
Whereas, you are arguing that suffering is a result of experiencing an unmet preference, I might argue that suffering is a result of unmet needs. Of course, we prefer our needs to be met. But there is a difference. Perhaps, I prefer chicken over steak. If I'm forced to eat steak, one could say I am 'suffering.' But that is not the same thing as if I am forced to starve to death. In one, I am not experiencing the ideal. But in the other, a tangible need is unmet.
Would you not also agree that some people prefer things that actually end up causing suffering? Things like addiction, self harm, and lack of self care. Perhaps, in the previous example, I prefer not to eat. At this point, what is the greater suffering? To starve or to be forced to eat?
“Whereas, you are arguing that suffering is a result of experiencing an unmet preference, I might argue that suffering is a result of unmet needs.”
I would say this is a distinction without a difference in this particular case. It might get a bit semantic here, but I believe ultimately it is all preference. You prefer to live, so your unmet physical needs not being met is an unmet preference.
This holds a bit more weight when we're talking about the physical, but when we move to perhaps just the emotional side of things, I think it indexes a bit heavier on preference than needs. Because emotionality/preference becomes much more subjective here, if not entirely.
So if I'm feeling lonely, I might need to see somebody because I prefer not to be lonely. But if I enjoy solitude, I might prefer to be alone.
Would you not also agree that some people prefer things that actually end up causing suffering? Things like addiction, self harm, and lack of self care. Perhaps, in the previous example, I prefer not to eat. At this point, what is the greater suffering? To starve or to be forced to eat?
I would define this as regret. Someone choosing something they prefer now, but not seeing the potential limitations of preference they will have in the future if they make “x” decision now. But I do always believe in each moment, someone makes the decision they prefer. Although, they just might not have the spectrum of options they’d hope to have due to decision-making on prior preferences.
A fit person might not necessarily love working out, but the thought of being mushy is worth suffering, less preferred than the pain of going and getting an hour workout done. The addict might not necessarily want to take the next hit, but the thought of going through withdrawals and facing whatever else they might need to face is more painful than just getting the momentary bliss of another high.
If I prefer chicken over steak, but I have to eat steak, I prefer that less than eating chicken, but I would prefer even less to have no option and to starve to death. On my potential spectrum of preference, from maximum bliss to maximum suffering, eating steak is probably a bit closer to maximum bliss, and starving to death is probably almost at the bottom to maximum suffering.
With that said, I'm willing to change my mind on this completely. Needs are perhaps just more dramatic or polar versions of preference. Emotional needs are more easily seen as subjective, but physical needs are also ultimately subjective preference.
Everyone could (atheist included) and should learn from C.S. Lewis, of course. That's step 1. Let's just get that out of the way haha
I think C.S. Lewis's argument is very beautiful, but it does presuppose and requires that you believe in such a thing as objective morality. If you don't believe in objective morality, the C.S. Lewis argument wouldn't hold any water or do any heavy lifting for you.
Regardless of my personal beliefs, I could see that this is a problem to contend or at least a group of people that Lewis’ argument won't have an effect on. @Elizabeth Hayashi
I have quite enjoyed this conversation. And I am grateful for the opportunity to bang on the walls of your argument a little. And see how far it will take me. 👌
It seems that perhaps there is a need for a third-party authority of truth either to tell us what to prefer or to define need. Or both.
However, I will concede that if logic and the human mind is the highest authority of truth, and if there is no third-party authority, then I agree that both preference and need are subjective because at that point, both are merely experience-based.
I would then agree that such subjectivity does leave space for your original claim that suffering is a built in facet of consciousness. I wouldn't say it proves your claim. But certainly, at that point, there is space for it.
Thanks for an awesome conversation!! I look forward to reading what's next!
This was great. I’ve been chronically ill my entire life. I have suffered a lot in my 49 years, physically and emotionally. Without that suffering, I wouldn’t be able to appreciate the joys of my life. I appreciate little things other people don’t notice because they haven’t suffered as much as I have. My suffering made me the man I am today.
There is suffering in the world because Satan rules the world. God gave us free will because He loves us and doesn’t want us to be forced into anything. He gives us the opportunity to hear His word and make a choice for ourselves.
I was only saved 4 years ago, but I know realize that God was with me the entire time, especially the worst times. As bad as things got, they could have been much worse.
I’d like to share these articles so you can see what He’s done for me.
https://lilmattschneider.substack.com/p/devotionaltestimony?r=59sc09&utm_medium=ios
https://substack.com/@lilmattschneider/note/p-188840061?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=59sc09
Thank you for writing this.
this is so good!!!!!!
Thank you! I hope it was useful
It’s interesting because for me suffering was precisely the reason I became a believer. In the face of mortality enduring suffering without a greater cause just seemed meaningless. Thank you for the article, I enjoyed thoroughly enjoyed it.
Thanks for sharing, Tyler!
This one stretched me in a good way. I am much more acquainted and comfortable with C.S. Lewis's argument in 'Mere Christianity,' that consciousness of evil/suffering proves that such a thing as perfect goodness exists. Much the same as our consciousness of darkness proves that light exists.
But maybe you're not a C.S. Lewis fan at all. And maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree. Lol.
Okay, so I have one major question about the framework you used. If suffering is an element of consciousness, how would you explain the Christian description of consciousness in the Garden of Eden? If going with a Biblical framework, we see that before sin, God called everything He created 'Good.' And yet, clearly He also demonstrated preference by creating humanity in His own image. (Genesis 1:26-28).
But in His preference of humankind over every other creation did not come with suffering for Him. Everything was still called 'Good.' And as far as I can tell Adam and Eve's preference for each other over every other creation did not mean that they suffered either.
It was only when they preferred something that God did not prefer for them that suffering began (Genesis 3).
Or at least... That's my church-y understanding of everything 😂
But I'm curious of what you have to say here?
Also, keep up the good work! Lol 😂
Your second point on the Garden of Eden and a world before original sin is extremely interesting.
Let me say before I continue that nearly everything I try to write, I will attempt to keep decoupled from any particular worldview. Some things I write might be able to be used as an apologetic, but that was not its intended cause, although it might have that effect.
My goal is to be coarse sandpaper that could eat away at and eventually shape a more coherent worldview for anyone reading something I put out.
Okay, back to the Garden of Eden we go.
I have no issues with the idea that God could have the ability to perceive, understand, and feel suffering without the lived experience of it.
Your point gets extremely interesting when it comes to Adam and Eve. I could probably write a whole essay on this point that you made and the rest of the story in Genesis and the introduction of suffering. @Elizabeth Hayashi
Wow, I definitely respect this attempt to keep your writing decoupled from any particular worldview! I can see how this would be extremely challenging but also very enlightening, both to yourself and to others. Incredible!
In response to both of your replies, I agree that C.S. Lewis' argument is based on the presupposition that objective morality exists. Although, it is worth noting that before making the aforementioned argument, he also sets up an argument for objective morality.
But would you say that you presuppose that suffering is a built in facet of consciousness? Is there any space to say that there could have existed consciousness without suffering at one point of time? If not for God, than for humanity?
Whereas, you are arguing that suffering is a result of experiencing an unmet preference, I might argue that suffering is a result of unmet needs. Of course, we prefer our needs to be met. But there is a difference. Perhaps, I prefer chicken over steak. If I'm forced to eat steak, one could say I am 'suffering.' But that is not the same thing as if I am forced to starve to death. In one, I am not experiencing the ideal. But in the other, a tangible need is unmet.
Would you not also agree that some people prefer things that actually end up causing suffering? Things like addiction, self harm, and lack of self care. Perhaps, in the previous example, I prefer not to eat. At this point, what is the greater suffering? To starve or to be forced to eat?
“Whereas, you are arguing that suffering is a result of experiencing an unmet preference, I might argue that suffering is a result of unmet needs.”
I would say this is a distinction without a difference in this particular case. It might get a bit semantic here, but I believe ultimately it is all preference. You prefer to live, so your unmet physical needs not being met is an unmet preference.
This holds a bit more weight when we're talking about the physical, but when we move to perhaps just the emotional side of things, I think it indexes a bit heavier on preference than needs. Because emotionality/preference becomes much more subjective here, if not entirely.
So if I'm feeling lonely, I might need to see somebody because I prefer not to be lonely. But if I enjoy solitude, I might prefer to be alone.
Would you not also agree that some people prefer things that actually end up causing suffering? Things like addiction, self harm, and lack of self care. Perhaps, in the previous example, I prefer not to eat. At this point, what is the greater suffering? To starve or to be forced to eat?
I would define this as regret. Someone choosing something they prefer now, but not seeing the potential limitations of preference they will have in the future if they make “x” decision now. But I do always believe in each moment, someone makes the decision they prefer. Although, they just might not have the spectrum of options they’d hope to have due to decision-making on prior preferences.
A fit person might not necessarily love working out, but the thought of being mushy is worth suffering, less preferred than the pain of going and getting an hour workout done. The addict might not necessarily want to take the next hit, but the thought of going through withdrawals and facing whatever else they might need to face is more painful than just getting the momentary bliss of another high.
If I prefer chicken over steak, but I have to eat steak, I prefer that less than eating chicken, but I would prefer even less to have no option and to starve to death. On my potential spectrum of preference, from maximum bliss to maximum suffering, eating steak is probably a bit closer to maximum bliss, and starving to death is probably almost at the bottom to maximum suffering.
With that said, I'm willing to change my mind on this completely. Needs are perhaps just more dramatic or polar versions of preference. Emotional needs are more easily seen as subjective, but physical needs are also ultimately subjective preference.
@Elizabeth Hayashi
Everyone could (atheist included) and should learn from C.S. Lewis, of course. That's step 1. Let's just get that out of the way haha
I think C.S. Lewis's argument is very beautiful, but it does presuppose and requires that you believe in such a thing as objective morality. If you don't believe in objective morality, the C.S. Lewis argument wouldn't hold any water or do any heavy lifting for you.
Regardless of my personal beliefs, I could see that this is a problem to contend or at least a group of people that Lewis’ argument won't have an effect on. @Elizabeth Hayashi
Fascinating points!
I have quite enjoyed this conversation. And I am grateful for the opportunity to bang on the walls of your argument a little. And see how far it will take me. 👌
It seems that perhaps there is a need for a third-party authority of truth either to tell us what to prefer or to define need. Or both.
However, I will concede that if logic and the human mind is the highest authority of truth, and if there is no third-party authority, then I agree that both preference and need are subjective because at that point, both are merely experience-based.
I would then agree that such subjectivity does leave space for your original claim that suffering is a built in facet of consciousness. I wouldn't say it proves your claim. But certainly, at that point, there is space for it.
Thanks for an awesome conversation!! I look forward to reading what's next!
I agree 100% with that take! Thanks for pushing me Elizabeth :)