Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Reasons.org: Science, Faith, and the Problem of Pain

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

RTB Visiting Scholar Balajied Nongrum writes:

In his book, Does He Know a Mother’s Heart?: How Suffering Refutes Religion,1 Arun Shourie, a journalist and a former minister for Communications and Information Technology of India, concludes that “suffering and God are incompatible.” When we reflect on both the extent and depth of pain and suffering in the world, whether it is due to moral evil (man’s cruelty to one another) or to natural evil (resulting in natural calamities), people will inevitably question the existence of God or ask, “Why?”

No doubt, many of us have felt the same way and perhaps we wanted to turn away from God. As someone who thinks about these issues deeply, I believe that everyone—regardless of what they believe—must offer a reasonable response to the problem of pain and suffering. In other words, every worldview under the Sun must deal with the problem of pain and suffering.

As a believer in God, I’m persuaded that the problem of pain and suffering, terrible as it is, does not negate God’s existence. On the contrary, I believe that having God in the equation is humanity’s last best hope of making sense of this issue. The Bible tells us that God does not merely exist, but he is also all-good and all-powerful. The Bible also recognizes the reality of evil (moral and natural) and proposes a reality where God will one day end evil and all sufferings.2 

However, I agree that humans may not fully know God’s specific purpose or design and the reasons for his permitting pain and suffering to exist in this world. But to a certain extent, human beings can gain some wisdom from different sources, such as our personal experiences with pain or the experiences of others, and from Holy Scripture. However, this article will offer a scientific view on the purpose of pain.

Pain: Foe or Friend?
In our modern world, pain is often viewed as the enemy that must be done away with or defeated at all costs. At the individual level, just a slight signal of pain such as a severe headache or a body ache is enough reason for us to gulp down an analgesic or pain killer. Readily available medication perhaps explains the hope and growing interest that people place in science and its perceived potential to eradicate pain and suffering.3 Even limiting or managing pain is welcomed. However, while the intention may be good, this goal is sadly shortsighted. This kind of hope in science is misplaced because it ignores the vital role that pain and suffering play in our lives.  

For instance, consider the medical condition seen among patients with diseases such as “leprosy, congenital painlessness, diabetic neuropathy, and other nerve disorders” where their inability to experience pain causes greater harm to them than the disease itself.4 People in such cases end up injuring themselves simply because the pain signal in their body is not functioning. In other words, from a scientific point of view, some pain serves as a warning of danger ahead.

The Gift of Pain, a book jointly authored by world-renowned hand surgeon Dr. Paul Brand and award-winning writer Philip Yancey tells the story of Tanya, a four-year-old girl who was brought to the hospital with a “swollen left ankle.” On further investigation, Brand found out that the “foot rotated freely, the sign of a fully dislocated ankle” and yet to the doctor’s utter shock Tanya was not the least bothered. She did not even exhibit any pain!5

Tanya was later diagnosed with a very rare genetic disease informally referred to as congenital indifference to pain. According to the experts, her overall health was fine except in one area: she did not feel pain! When she injured herself by any accident, all she felt was “a kind of tingling—but these carried no hint of unpleasantness.” It was evident that Tanya “lacked any mental construct of pain.” In other words, she did not have a “built-in warning system” to warn her of any further injuries.6 This case and others led Brand to say:

Tanya and others like her dramatically reinforced what we had already learned from leprosy patients: pain is not the enemy, but the loyal scout announcing the enemy. And yet—here is the central paradox of my life—after spending a lifetime among people who destroy themselves for lack of pain, I still find it difficult to communicate an appreciation for pain to people who have no such defect. Pain truly is the gift nobody wants. I can think of nothing more precious for those who suffer from congenital painlessness, leprosy, diabetes, and other nerve disorders. But people who already own this gift rarely value it. Usually, they resent it.7

This fact made me reevaluate my own painful visits to the dentist. Though the immediate pain of having my decaying tooth rectified was unbearable, the pain nevertheless served a better outcome. My dentist’s good intention kept me from suffering even greater pain in the future. Having come to this point, I could not help but agree with Brand’s conviction that pain truly is one of God’s greatest gifts to us, a gift that perhaps none of us want yet none of us can do without! 

Reasons.org

Even pain can be considered evidence of intelligent design. Although not discussed in the article directly, the pain we feel is exquisitely moderated to adequately warn our consciousness of the level of danger we may be experiencing at the moment. A pin-rick produces modest pain, while hitting one’s thumb with a hammer generates much greater pain. The level of pain we experience most often matches the level of danger to our body. Again, this is consistent with the expectations of a well-designed feedback system.

Comments
One last thing this mode of logic implies god is an idiot scientist. Note implies. God is not a scientist, artist, engineer, designer, interior decorator, doctor, motorcyclist, hippie, carpenter, conservative, liberal human. God is God, God is every aspect of who we are. Which means that God’s motivations and reasons for doing things are infinite. This is why arguments about why god did this or why did it take god so many tries fall flat. The argument implies the objectors opinion is correct. I do a lot of art, and many times I get it right the first time, but I go back to play with it and change it all the same. That doesn’t make me a bad artist, I just wanted something different. The same can be said about the designer. Again this is my take on itAaronS1978
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
The intervention objection seems to be more in line with nitpicking and actually not a real objection. I mean let’s really think about it. If god really wanted to, god could intervene an infinite number of times. We wouldn’t know and it would matter. God could simply change the direction god wanted to take life. The objection of multiple divine interventions seem shallow. It’s an obvious attempt to make god look stupid because god can’t get it right the first time so god is either dumb or doesn’t exist. But this objection once again implies that you know what god is thinking and you know how to do it better then god. Both are immediately untrue, whether god exists or not. And again either there is a specific path god wants us to go, (or for you atheists super determinism) god has changed his mind (why not god can do that) or god has things a certain way for reasons we are not aware of yet. In any case this is nothing but a logic trap and really doesn’t solve questions of our existence or god’s. We know things are finely tuned and very structured, history has taught us time and time again when we make assumptions that something is junk it’s almost always because we really did have a good understanding of it in the first place. Appendix for starters Personally I think god set things in motion and made us possibleAaronS1978
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
JVL at 71, God has a plan. He had no need to create anything or modify anything. If you want to know more, here it is: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p4.htmrelatd
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Relatd: Now you’re starting to get it. The designer – God – could modify any creature at any time. That's your hypothesis. I still wonder about how many would need to be modified and how would they know how to survive but I guess there's no way to get answers for that. Too there is the question of why not just get to the final goal right away. Why all the waste of all the creatures that no longer exist? Assuming there is a final goal . . . maybe there isn't? Maybe we're just at another stage along the way . . .JVL
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
JVL at 67, Now you're starting to get it. The designer - God - could modify any creature at any time. And scientists now know that even if organisms look similar it does not mean that they are actually related in terms of biology.relatd
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Jerry: The intelligence that created the species and the ecosystem would probably be intelligent enough to figure it out. I guess. Still it would be cool to know. But who knows just how it happened? Surely there are some hints, some remains, some evidence in the landscape. Science is about trying to figure out how things work or worked.JVL
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
tricky problem
The intelligence that created the species and the ecosystem would probably be intelligent enough to figure it out. But who knows just how it happened?jerry
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Jerry: Who knows? Just curious. It's a tricky problem. Especially with certain lifeforms. Like, say, Blue Whales. If when they appeared they were different enough from the existing aquatic creatures then (aside from there having to be enough to sustain a separate breeding population) there is also the question of how did moms of one species give birth and raise and feed members of a different species? I suppose the designer(s) could have poofed a sufficient number of a new species into existence at the same time but would they know what to eat and where the good feeding grounds were since most animals pick that up from their parents or their 'tribes'. Animal rights advocates have broken into research labs and let loose a lot of animals who have been raised in captivity for years and they do not know how to survive in the real world so I'm guess brand new species might have the same problems without parents to train them. Like I said, a tricky problem.JVL
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
So, do you think the intervention happens in the parent or during the conception
Who knows? My guess, at some point probably as many as several thousand different species during a short time. Ecologies had to be fine tuned based on the current environment of the Earth, thus the ecologies had to be designed/created just right in order for the various species to survive.jerry
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
ET: And ID doesn’t point to several million interventions…. How many interventions does it indicate?JVL
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
The only abilities of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes are producing genetic diseases and deformities. And ID doesn't point to several million interventions....ET
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
Jerry: ID never addresses the fact that ID points to several million interventions by an intelligence over the last 3+ billion years. I don’t disagree with this but it has to be acknowledged when dealing with someone who disagrees with ID. That makes sense that there would have to be interventions every time something beyond the "abilities" of unguided processes. So, do you think the intervention happens in the parent or during the conception? Surely, too, it would have to happen more than once (maybe a lot more than once) in order to form a viable working population.JVL
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
You didn’t. Instead, you tried to tell me what I should think. Big difference.
No, I told you what I believe, how obvious it was and that the major authors of ID books believe the same thing. You don’t have to agree. But don’t distort what I said. Glad this exchange is over but my point still stands, ID never addresses the fact that ID points to several million interventions by an intelligence over the last 3+ billion years. I don’t disagree with this but it has to be acknowledged when dealing with someone who disagrees with ID. What ID says is that some elements of the world are best explained by the intervention by an intelligence. It hides that it is probably millions of times. That is certainly an extremely small percentage of the actual physical events since the creation of the universe but it is a large number of interventions. Aside: the number of species since life first appeared has probably been exaggerated. For example, the Galapagos finches. They are all one species. Similarly I would bet all the so called beetle species are just variants and hybrids. I have no idea of the truth of this but after all the attention was paid to changes in finches and then them ending up as one species would give one pause to the various estimates of species.jerry
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
"I have answered your question several times." Jerry, You didn't. Instead, you tried to tell me what I should think. Big difference. I can see you aren't serious. Have a nice day. Andrewasauber
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
If you won’t answer it, just say so
I have answered your question several times. But apparently you do not understand ID. So read the books again.jerry
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
"These should help you." Jerry, I have read EoE and Darwin's Doubt. My question remains for you to answer. If you won't answer it, just say so. Andrewasauber
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
If so, then will you describe to me what the Evolutionary event was, when the Evolutionary event occurred, and maybe why the Evolutionary event occurred?
I suggest you read Behe and Meyer’s books and those edited by Jay Richards. Some suggestions are: Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen Meyer God and Evolution edited by Jay Richards These should help you. There have been several million species since life began. Where did they all come from? Granted that millions may be just variants or hybrids and essentially the same species, there are probably more than a million since life started. ID does not dispute this Evolution of species. What ID disputes is their origin by a natural mechanism. Most of these cannot be pinpointed to the specific year but can be arranged in time by the strata the fossils appeared in. But this is elementary stuff and not disputed by anyone in ID. So the what and when (roughly) have been documented. The books above should help you. The “why” is another issue.jerry
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
"I just said Evolution is a fact." Jerry, So, should I infer that your answer to my question is Yes, Evolution did occur? If so, then will you describe to me what the Evolutionary event was, when the Evolutionary event occurred, and maybe why the Evolutionary event occurred? Thanks. Andrewasauber
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
"... namely, that the intelligence behind the appearance of the millions of different life forms had to intervene each time for it to happen." You don't know that. That's not even a guess. In this case, God acted in His Creation. Evolution is not a fact.relatd
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
But asking if it even happened at all seems to make you oddly irritable and then you leave the question unanswered.
Interesting response. I have never left the question unanswered. I just said Evolution is a fact. Do you disagree because it is right above? I said the debate is over the mechanism. Do you disagree because it is also right above? Does trying to be accurate imply irritable? I was trying to clarify something that was obvious and was challenged by absurdity. Is responding to an absurdity a sign of irritability? If so I plead guilty. I usually don’t respond to absurdities and non sequiturs unless it’s possible to make a point. My original point is that ID people rarely admit what ID implies - namely, that the intelligence behind the appearance of the millions of different life forms had to intervene each time for it to happen. ID cannot point to a mechanism that would explain each appearance nor can anyone else who disagrees with ID. Does anyone not agree?jerry
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Didn’t mean to double post there it was lagAaronS1978
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
"the debate is over the mechanism for Evolution, not whether it happened or not" Perhaps for you, Jerry. But asking if it even happened at all seems to make you oddly irritable and then you leave the question unanswered. Andrewasauber
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Jerry at 49, What fact of evolution? Guess what?'m seeing less and less evidence for anything like evolution. ID is factual, so-called evolution has very little to show for it.relatd
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
@43 I wouldn’t say it’s arguing against evolution so much as it arguing against the blatant “god of gaps” abuse of the theory that is often accused of IDAaronS1978
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
@43 I wouldn’t say it’s arguing against evolution so much as it arguing against the blatant “god of gaps” abuse of the theory that is often accused of IDAaronS1978
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
This is a distraction. Either you can clearly define Evolution and then demonstrate specifically when and how it happened (and maybe why) or you can’t
Why have you distorted the obvious? If you been around This site awhile, you must know the debate is over the mechanism for Evolution, not whether it happened or not. Why did Behe and Meyer write books on it? There is no debate over the fact of Evolution amongst ID. Do you disagree?
Just labelling something a losing proposition and appealing to 99.9999999% of some group doesn’t get us there
Take it up with Behe, Meyer, West, Richards etc. They agree with what I said or even Caspian who wrote the OP.
I’m interested in something called Truth
I’m trying to clarify the issues and the response is nonsense. How is that truth?jerry
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Romans 1:25 "because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."relatd
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Only three things matter here. Atheism and promoting evolution without any divine interference. Politics, since, you know, ID might get into the schools, get people thinking about God, etc. Can't have that. Promoting abortion, sex outside of marriage and immoral sex in general. That's it.relatd
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Jerry, I'm interested in something called Truth. Just labelling something a losing proposition and appealing to 99.9999999% of some group doesn't get us there. You've fallen short with your evasion. Andrewasauber
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Jerry at 41, You are just repeating the same tired, old line about the Creator "meddling." He is active in His Creation at this moment. Communion and Stewardship Part 69. ... "But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2). 'relatd
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply