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
Seversky
Why wouldn’t a designer have fitted us with sensors to give us early warning of these conditions since our design is clearly prone to them?
Seversky, you got it all wrong again ... There are so many sensors in our bodies, that you hardly can fit more in there ...
since our design is clearly prone to them
Aaron @6 makes a very good point in his answer to you .... so let me quote him once again:
before you use cancer as an example how terrible our designer is, make sure that the readers know that cancer’s dealt with by the body’s immune system and other genetic methods on a day-to-day basis taking care of it regularly. It’s only when your body fails to continuously take care of it that cancer becomes a problem That’s kind of an important detail you left out Also I’m not sure of a single system in existence no matter how well designed it is that won’t eventually fail. Nothing is meant to live forever.
Yes, in our body/cells there are lots of checkpoints, proofreading/repair systems, and other mechanisms (and when needed, even gene-directed cell death), which help to keep our cells/body intact. Clearly, without these designed crucial features, there won't be life. It is another example of irreducible complex system. Darwinism is a hoax ...martin_r
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Querius/10 With due respect, I don't see anyone "raging against the Creator." I see fair commentary on the OP. You chose to reply with irrelevant references to Revelation, and it was you that chose to take this discussion into the gutter. No serious biblical scholar doubts that Revelation is by far the most controversial book of the NT. It is still eschewed in public worship within the Eastern rite and the mental state of its author has been seriously questioned for centuries. Luther viewed it as an embarrassment, and it is the one book in the NT which Calvin declined to discuss in his commentaries. In other words, not only is it irrelevant to my comments, it's also a really poor choice to use as a source in response....chuckdarwin
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
A big breakthrough - pain is relative.
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-prick produces modest pain, while hitting one’s thumb with a hammer generates much greater pain
I have been advocating this for years with other unwanted events. They are comparatively very different in effect but we use the same absolute words (pain) to describe these unwanted events of which some may be very mild or trivial. Maybe it will become part of our general understanding of creation by the creator. Here pain is part of the logic of creation. It’s part of an unwanted event Aside: these types of arguments against a creator are only used against the Christian God. They fail with the other run of the mill creators for which critics have no interest. The implication is that Christianity is the target not design. Prediction: no one will really analyze the absurdity of their pronouncements. They are too valuable for themselves. And God knows, what would we do with thousands less of irrelevant comments. But we are here for religion not ID. Even though ID cannot justify a specific religion.jerry
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
"Chuckdarwin and Seversky are so ideologically poisoned" So much so that they spend much of their conscious lives pointlessly trolling people they don't know but imagine they hate. Andrewasauber
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
Why am I not surprised at the vacuous vituperation in response to my question? Chuckdarwin and Seversky are so ideologically poisoned by their fossilized mindset that they could not bring themselves to read what's actually written in the reference I provided with regard to "the lake of fire." With eyes tightly shut and fingers jammed in their ears, they simply repeat their set opinions and condemnations of their Creator. If it were not so, they might ask, "How is it possible that death and hell be thrown into the lake of fire to be burned up forever?" Instead, they choose to vilify the Creator of space, time, mass, energy, life, insanely complex organelles, consciousness, creativity, information, beauty, love, and mercy. Given a choice between the loving genius of the Creator and hell, it would seem that they would happily dive headfirst into hell. The next question that I'd ask (and that they would likely also evade as before) is “Why the vituperation?” A. If the Creator doesn't exist, they might as well be insanely hostile toward the Easter Bunny or Donald Duck. B. If the Creator does exist, then how foolish and stupid to rage against Him. At least, they should be willing to differentiate "between the Christianity of Christ" from the various religions and charlatans using his name--as did Frederick Douglass in the addendum to his autobiographical narrative of the brutalities he endured as an American slave. -QQuerius
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
@8 https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-original-sin-stupid https://www.catholic.com/search?q=Is%20original%20sin%20unjust You really need to start taking you objections to the source Btw Darwin was a racist, slave owning, cousin screwing, pedophile. Literally the last person that should be criticizing any church on morals. And if you want to make a priest joke based on the sexual abuse of the church, I’ll beat you to it, he’d fit right in with the rest of the trash that was taken outAaronS1978
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
In Western systems of justice, the accused have a right to face their accusers in court and to the opportunity to defend themselves against any charges. If found guilty, they may be subject to penalties prescribed by the law but in no cases may even their most distant descendants be punished in perpetuity for a crime they did not commit nor could they have possibly had any influence over. The Christian doctrine of eternal damnation, of being damned as sinful even before you are born is both profoundly unjust, absurd and, as Darwin wrote, "a damnable doctrine"Seversky
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Querius/4 My comment is straightforward and doesn’t require an exegesis of one of history’s most psychotic pieces of writing—The Book of Revelation. If one accepts the traditional view of hell, then God does not end “all sufferings.” Ever. In fact, for those condemned, quite the opposite “reality” allegedly is in store.………chuckdarwin
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
@1 before you use cancer as an example how terrible our designer is, make sure that the readers know that cancer’s dealt with by the body’s immune system and other genetic methods on a day-to-day basis taking care of it regularly. It’s only when your body fails to continuously take care of it that cancer becomes a problem That’s kind of an important detail you left out Also I’m not sure of a single system in existence no matter how well designed it is that won’t eventually fail. Nothing is meant to live forever.AaronS1978
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
A universe with life but without pain is a contradiction that cannot abide.EvilSnack
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Notice that the previous chapter of Revelation (Revelation 20) indicates that that even death and hell are tossed into this lake of fire, which is called "the second death!" So, Seversky and Chuckdarwin, what can you infer about how this should be interpreted? -QQuerius
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
CD at 2, What about Hell? It exists. It's real. Unfortunately, Hell awaits those who reject God and deny Him. Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."relatd
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
The writer states:
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.
To which one can only reply, and what of Hell? How does that end "all sufferings"?chuckdarwin
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
If you pre-suppose the existence of a ubiquitous intelligent designer then pain could well be a designed attribute. The problem, however, is not so much the association of pain with some cases of injury or disease but the absence of pain or any other form of alert in many other cases of injury or disease. Many patients are unaware of the presence of various cancers, for example, until the disease has already progressed to an advanced stage. Why wouldn't a designer have fitted us with sensors to give us early warning of these conditions since our design is clearly prone to them?Seversky
August 12, 2022
August
08
Aug
12
12
2022
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply