Featured The “naturalist” Problem of Suffering

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

Who sez chemistry n electricity isn't real?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.)

 

Strange

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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).

 

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?

 

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.

 

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