Suffering Makes Life Meaningful ?

[RandFan]

I can't answer that. It would demean her, and reveal nothing but my arrogance. Who am I to presume to know what was good for her?

I can't think of any possible way that it could have been good for her. I've given it some serious thought but I just don't see it.

Could you offer some possibilities? How could it have possibly been good for her? You don't have to presuppose that it was good for her but you could tell us how it might have been good for her?

I'll tell you what, I honestly think that to suggest that it could have been good for her in fact demeans her. I think that to suggest that such an act could have some merit, for her, is to take away her humanity. It oppens up the possibility that such actions are justifiable and appropriate.

 

[bruto]

I can't think of any possible way that it could have been good for her. I've given it some serious thought but I just don't see it.

Could you offer some possibilities? How could it have possibly been good for her? You don't have to presuppose that it was good for her but you could tell us how it might have been good for her?

I'll tell you what, I honestly think that to suggest that it could have been good for her in fact demeans her. I think that to suggest that such an act could have some merit, for her, is to take away her humanity. It oppens up the possibility that such actions are justifiable and appropriate.

If you're talking about good and evil, there has to be something that is actually, really evil, I would think. To suggest that an evil act is actually good for its victim is a pretty far stretch. Of course, we can hope that somehow a victim of evil might, through his or her own initiative, wisdom, or optimism, make something good out of the experience, but this does not make the act itself any less evil.

I think this whole thread has suffered from a lack of distinction between the existence of suffering in the abstract, and the experience of it in particular. It's not too hard to make a case that for X to have meaning, its opposite must exist. That does not necessarily mean that we must each experience it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It's not too hard to make a case that for X to have meaning, its opposite must exist.

I dont' think you can make a good case for that at all..

Are you suggesting for my possessions to mean something or bring me pleasure, someone else must have less, or nothing?

Why can't a painting be beautiful in the absence of an ugly painting.. Couldn't we compare a beautiful painting to no painting at all ?

Why can't everyone have all they need ? At least under a system, where an omnipotent God exists..

 

[Iacchus]

What on Earth are you babbling about? Start a new thread if you want to discuss emotionalism.

As if to say you shouldn't get sense of enjoyment out of what you do? Pullease. Why else do it then, especially if it doesn't mean anything?

 

[Complexity]

There is no god.
There is no heaven.
There is no hell.
There is no life after death.
There is no purpose.

Suffering sucks.

Shed your superstitions.

Make the most of this life - it is the only one you'll get.

 

[bruto]

I dont' think you can make a good case for that at all..

Are you suggesting for my possessions to mean something or bring me pleasure, someone else must have less, or nothing?

Why can't a painting be beautiful in the absence of an ugly painting.. Couldn't we compare a beautiful painting to no painting at all ?

Why can't everyone have all they need ? At least under a system, where an omnipotent God exists..

Maybe "Opposite" is a poor choice on my part; absence might well be sufficient, but how do we otherwise even put a name to ideas like beauty or pleasure? If pleasure were the default experience, and never could be diminished, would we speak of it at all as a distinct experience of life, or would it be down there with liver function and circulation of lymph? Sure, everyone could have all they need, call it "enough," and that would not deprive "enough" of meaning, but I think there must somewhere be at least the concept of "not enough." If "enough" is all we know, all we can have, and if no meaningful possibility exists of losing it, then I think we would not be dealing with the concept, or using the word.

 

[BJQ87]

Some suffering makes life meaningfull, some does not. For example a man may look at the loss of all his past relationships as though it may have been painfull but that it also taught him and made him apretiate his current relationship more...this isn't always the case but many times it is. On the other hand there are many tragic things that can happen that aren't intended for the purpose of making life meaningfull. Much on the contrary, to make life meaningless as is with the proper perspective. But it is the finding of what does make life meaningfull that overpowers. Also leaving such perspective of earth here on earth where it belongs, and descending the holy spirit as the perspective of heaven, the planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.

 

[RandFan]

If you're talking about good and evil, there has to be something that is actually, really evil, I would think.

I don't see any relevance of injecting the terms good or evil in my example. I'm merly addressing the practical aspects of being sexually assulted, tortured and killed. I'm wondering if there are any postive aspect to those events for the person experiencing them.

Of course, we can hope that somehow a victim of evil might, through his or her own initiative, wisdom, or optimism, make something good out of the experience, but this does not make the act itself any less evil.

The use of the word evil is yours not mine. In any event "initiative, wisdom or optimism" seems rather moot when one is dead. Don't you think?

 

[RandFan]

Shed your superstitions.

Make the most of this life - it is the only one you'll get.

Thanks, we can now close R&P.

 

[Z]

I meant to add:

Let me ask this first ..


If suffering makes life meaningfull ( in the mind of those who hold these beliefs ), then what makes existence in Heaven meaningfull ?

Sorry to come in late and quote early, but...

Existence on Earth is what would make existence in Heaven meaningful. You'd remember how miserable you were on Earth, and find Heaven that much more enjoyable.

---No, it doesn't make sense to me, either.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Sorry to come in late and quote early, but...

Existence on Earth is what would make existence in Heaven meaningful. You'd remember how miserable you were on Earth, and find Heaven that much more enjoyable.

---No, it doesn't make sense to me, either.

Funny, I just commented on this in the other thread..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1307313#post1307313

Excerpt:

" What does this say about a God who created a world so crappy, that it's inhabitants can only look forward to dying ? "


Besides, isn't " remembering how miserable you were on Earth ", kind of like, against the rules, in Heaven ?

 

[Iacchus]

There is no god.
There is no heaven.
There is no hell.
There is no life after death.
There is no purpose.

Suffering sucks.

Shed your superstitions.

Make the most of this life - it is the only one you'll get.

So, does this mean it's okay to cheat and steal and, in effect cause suffering on other people, just so long as you don't get caught? If you knew you weren't going to get caught, then who cares, right?

 

[c4ts]

So, does this mean it's okay to cheat and steal and, in effect cause suffering on other people, just so long as you don't get caught? If you knew you weren't going to get caught, then who cares, right?

No. Go read the Republic. I reccomend the Bloom translation.

 

[Complexity]

So, does this mean it's okay to cheat and steal and, in effect cause suffering on other people, just so long as you don't get caught? If you knew you weren't going to get caught, then who cares, right?

Well, Iacchus, I like to think that I have responsibility for my moral and ethical system. I'm sorry that you don't.

I don't believe that morals and ethics have any foundation - there is no authority that hands them down, they are not "natural", they can not be deduced. I have been exposed to many systems of morals and ethics - for the rest of my life, I shall continue to consider them, think on my own, and construct and reexamine the system that I call my own. This is the system that I try to live by.

The suggestion that people who are not religious have no morals or ethics is contemptible.

 

[Iacchus]

The suggestion that people who are not religious have no morals or ethics is contemptible.

Actually, it pretty much applies to anybody. What difference would it make, if you didn't think you were going to get caught? What would you base your criteria upon in order not to do it? Or, let's say you were the religious type, what justification would you use for doing it if, in fact you knew it was wrong?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Actually, it pretty much applies to anybody. What difference would it make, if you didn't think you were going to get caught? What would you base your criteria upon in order not to do it? Or, let's say you were the religious type, what justification would you use for doing it if, in fact you knew it was wrong?

So you think inaction out of , ' fear of getting caught ' , is an example of moral behavior ?

 

[RandFan]

Actually, it pretty much applies to anybody. What difference would it make, if you didn't think you were going to get caught? What would you base your criteria upon in order not to do it? Or, let's say you were the religious type, what justification would you use for doing it if, in fact you knew it was wrong?

Your point is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow from the post you were responding to. I don't believe in god. I'm a moral person because I'm a moral person. God has nothing to do with my desire to live a moral life.

 

[Iacchus]

So you think inaction out of , ' fear of getting caught ' , is an example of moral behavior ?

So, aside from the fear of retribution, what do you base morality on? It sounds to me like you have nothing to add in its place. Or, could it be that it gives you a "special" feeling inside to do "nice" things to people? Of course you could say everyone benifits by learning to cooperate, but how does that make it moral, as opposed to just practical? Or, what about in the case of someone like Adolf Hitler, would it have been wrong to cooperate with him?

 

[David Swidler]

Oh, great. Thanks, Iacchus, for making this thread jump the shark. Godwin's Law strikes again, just when the discussion was getting good.

Let's try some CPR.

I think heaven is irrelevant to the OP, thus my question,

Who said anything about heaven?

To which Diogenes replied,

The fundies, who say to get there, you have to believe in a God who will send you to Hell if you reject him.

But we're not discussing fundies. We're discussing whether suffering has a logical place in the framework of an omnipotent, benevolent God. I rather doubt that "the fundies" think these things through, which is what we're trying to do in this thread. You've made a jump to "have to believe" or else, which is a different topic (I shan't suggest a new thread right now; I'm confused enough keeping track of this one). I think we can tackle this issue without having to leave "this world."

Why can't everyone have all they need ? At least under a system, where an omnipotent God exists.

You forgot "benevolent," and that's the key. Such a God seeks to give humanity the best possible arrangement. Giving them the opportunity to achieve what they need is better than just giving them the latter ("Teach a man to fish...."). But meaningful achievement requires adversity. It requires risk. Without suffering, there's no such thing as risk. So suffering must exist in such a system.

Where does it say it's not possible to have " .. empathy, love, commitment, etc. " without indescriminate suffering ?

Key word: "indiscriminate." I didn't use that word. Do I take it that you agree they can't exist if suffering in general is impossible?

Getting back to "indiscriminate": I can see where you're going. It takes us a bit afield, but I assume this wouldn't seriously derail the thread.

Following the logic of the greatest good being the opportunity to achieve, achievement as such requires not only adversity but free will. We don't consider a rock being pushed up a hill as achieving anything, even though it scaled the thing. Real achievement requires the choice to see the job through, to abstain entirely or to give up in the middle.

Free will can't coexist with the manifest presence of God. Humanity would be automatons at best, conscious rebels at worst, and no good - at least not the greatest good - would come of it. So God "hides." Justice is not swift, nor readily apparent in most cases. Natural disasters strike. Kids die. Good people suffer. Bad people thrive. If it were otherwise we'd have no choice but to follow that God, since such a course of action would be demonstrably the only legitimate one.

This brings us to RandFan's valid points regarding the BTK victim:

I can't think of any possible way that it could have been good for her. I've given it some serious thought but I just don't see it.

Could you offer some possibilities? How could it have possibly been good for her? You don't have to presuppose that it was good for her but you could tell us how it might have been good for her?

I'll tell you what, I honestly think that to suggest that it could have been good for her in fact demeans her. I think that to suggest that such an act could have some merit, for her, is to take away her humanity. It oppens up the possibility that such actions are justifiable and appropriate.

If I claimed before that her fate was good for her, I recoil from that and retract it. You're right, it's demeaning. I thought I tried specifically to avoid trying to justify her fate. To do so now wouldn't be any less distasteful (hey, while I'm at it I'll say the Katrina victims deservd their fate, yeah, those freeloading ingrates. And something about Dover, PA).

My point was not to say that she, personally, benefited from being tortured and killed. I shudder at the thought. My point was that making it impossible for any of us to suffer that fate would violate the aforementioned package of achievement, adversity and freewill that stems from the OP. It's scary, but it's an indispensible part of human existence. The God of the OP doesn't take half measures. Only the greatest good will suffice, and that brings with it the risk of the greatest suffering. Immunity from any suffering would stunt human development.

 

[bruto]

Oh, great. Thanks, Iacchus, for making this thread jump the shark. Godwin's Law strikes again, just when the discussion was getting good.

Let's try some CPR.

I think heaven is irrelevant to the OP, thus my question, To which Diogenes replied,

But we're not discussing fundies. We're discussing whether suffering has a logical place in the framework of an omnipotent, benevolent God. I rather doubt that "the fundies" think these things through, which is what we're trying to do in this thread. You've made a jump to "have to believe" or else, which is a different topic (I shan't suggest a new thread right now; I'm confused enough keeping track of this one). I think we can tackle this issue without having to leave "this world."

You forgot "benevolent," and that's the key. Such a God seeks to give humanity the best possible arrangement. Giving them the opportunity to achieve what they need is better than just giving them the latter ("Teach a man to fish...."). But meaningful achievement requires adversity. It requires risk. Without suffering, there's no such thing as risk. So suffering must exist in such a system.


Key word: "indiscriminate." I didn't use that word. Do I take it that you agree they can't exist if suffering in general is impossible?

Getting back to "indiscriminate": I can see where you're going. It takes us a bit afield, but I assume this wouldn't seriously derail the thread.

Following the logic of the greatest good being the opportunity to achieve, achievement as such requires not only adversity but free will. We don't consider a rock being pushed up a hill as achieving anything, even though it scaled the thing. Real achievement requires the choice to see the job through, to abstain entirely or to give up in the middle.

Free will can't coexist with the manifest presence of God. Humanity would be automatons at best, conscious rebels at worst, and no good - at least not the greatest good - would come of it. So God "hides." Justice is not swift, nor readily apparent in most cases. Natural disasters strike. Kids die. Good people suffer. Bad people thrive. If it were otherwise we'd have no choice but to follow that God, since such a course of action would be demonstrably the only legitimate one.

This brings us to RandFan's valid points regarding the BTK victim:


If I claimed before that her fate was good for her, I recoil from that and retract it. You're right, it's demeaning. I thought I tried specifically to avoid trying to justify her fate. To do so now wouldn't be any less distasteful (hey, while I'm at it I'll say the Katrina victims deservd their fate, yeah, those freeloading ingrates. And something about Dover, PA).

My point was not to say that she, personally, benefited from being tortured and killed. I shudder at the thought. My point was that making it impossible for any of us to suffer that fate would violate the aforementioned package of achievement, adversity and freewill that stems from the OP. It's scary, but it's an indispensible part of human existence. The God of the OP doesn't take half measures. Only the greatest good will suffice, and that brings with it the risk of the greatest suffering. Immunity from any suffering would stunt human development.

You didn't use the word "indiscriminate," but isn't that the result of what you're talking about? Adversity could hardly be discriminate or directed as you describe the scheme. So because free will is impossible if God is manifest, he hides to force us to make our own decisions, then rewards and punishes us for the quality of our guess? And the best scheme he can come up with to make it all work is utilitarian?

How does the actual, tanngible manifestation of this plan of god's, with its necessity of essentially indiscriminate or random disaster, and unequal opportunity, differ from the manifestation of a world with no God?