Theory Of Suffering

[Brian 2.0]

I've been doing a lot of thought and reading of the Problem of Evil and the possible reasons suffering exists with an all powerful God. I've been trying to distill it all down into one broad, what I'm calling, Theory on Suffering. Basically lay out the possible HOWs and WHYs of suffering that can accommodate all forms of suffering/evil.

Full disclosure... I'm a very recent non-believer. I've been discussing this at length with my full believing father (who's been super cool with me and my questions thankfully). I'm hoping to get some sort of model going that both my dad and myself can agree on. This being the first step. Thought I'd put it up here for feedback. I'm sure there are holes here and I'm trying to find them and alter this to make it work.

Two requests...

1) I know some might think this is a fools errand, but I don't desire this thread to turn into a "this is pointless" "scientific method doesn't work on God" debate. You can say that, but hopefully you'll also find specific holes in this as well.

2) This doesn't get into any of the WHYs, just some agreed terms dealing with the interplay of God, Nature, and Agency. I don't want this thread to be about the WHYs of evil/suffering.

Anyway... here it is for those interested. Love to here thoughts:

THEORY OF SUFFERING

Suffering occurs because of one (or a combination) of the following two things:

1. NATURE in action
   
   • Natural Disasters (floods, earthquakes, etc)
     
   • Physical Laws (Gravity when you fall off a cliff, etc.)
     
   • Body Function (cancer, chemical depression, etc.)
     

[*]AGENCY in action

• Someone else’s actions or inactions upon you. (Intentional or unintentional)
  
• Your own actions or inactions. (Intentional or unintentional)
  

GOD IN NATURE:

God has complete and total control over every aspect of NATURE. Jesus calmed the stormy seas (1a), walked on water (1b), and raised Lazurus from the dead (1c).

With ALL consequences from NATURE, God has chosen to do at least one of the following:

• Intervened and CAUSED the consequences of nature
  
• Intervened and PREVENTED the consequences of nature
  
• Not intervened and ALLOWED the consequences of nature
  

With his total control of nature, God has the ability to prevent ANY and ALL suffering resulting from NATURE in action.

GOD IN AGENCY:

The agency of man is often called a Gift from God. It seems and though God granted us the power to choose and can never FORCE us to choose one way or the other. But that does not mean God is powerless when it comes to the effects of agency.

With ALL consequences from AGNECY, God has chosen to do at least one of the following:

• Intervened and INFLUENCED a person to choose a course of action they wouldn’t have made if God hadn’t intervened (still small voice, angel appearing, etc).
  
• Intervened and PREVENTED a choice from being made by CAUSING effects of nature (sudden heart attack, natural disaster, etc.)
  
• Not intervene and ALLOWED a choice to be made.
  

So while God technically cannot take away our agency and force us into a choice, his massive ability to influence coupled with complete control over nature make it so that God has the ability to prevent ANY and ALL suffering resulting from AGENCY in action.

GOD AND SUFFERING:

God has the ability to prevent ANY and ALL suffering from occurring while still granting man’s free will. Therefore ANY and ALL suffering that occurs happens because God has made a choice to either CAUSE or ALLOW it.

[Log]

Try this. For the short-short version, read pages 87-88.

For the benefit of the TL/DR crowd:

1. God is almighty, omniscient, all-good, and exists.

2. God is conditioned by the existence of coeternal realities such as:

a. Intelligences ( necessarily existing selves) .

b. Chaotic mass/energy.

c. Moral principles.

d. Physical laws defining time, space and matter.

3. God is almighty if he can bring about the optimal realization of potential among states of affairs (i.e., states of affairs consistent with there being other ontological realities).

4. A perfectly good being prevents all the evil and promotes all the good it can without thereby preventing a greater good.

5. Moral evils occur and God justifiably allows them because:

a. Human nature is uncreated (2a).

b. Humans are inherently self-determining and categorically free (2a).

c. Humans are morally imperfect and potentially perfectible (2a, 2c).

d. God's purpose in creation is to provide the opportunity for intellectual and moral development of persons (2a, 4).

e. Moral opposition is necessary to moral development (2a, 2c).

f. God did not create human nature either virtuous or depraved (5a, 5b).

g. Humans sometimes choose evil (5b, 5c).

h. God is justified in not contravening human evil choices (3, 4, 5d, 5e).

6. Natural evils occur and God is not blameworthy for them because;

a. Chaotic mass/energy is uncreated ( 2b).

b. The laws governing mass/energy are eternal and independent of God ( 2b, 2d ) .

c. Some of these laws require that mass/energy be organized on causal principles (2d).

d. Adverse physical circumstances may enhance moral and intellectual development of intelligences (2a, 2c, 5c).

e. The nature of causal principles is such that many indiscriminant natural evils occur (6a, 6b, 6c ).

f. God may justifiably allow some natural evils (3, 4, 6d).

7. Whatever evils occur are:

a. Unpreventable by God consistent with individual autonomy.

b. Unpreventable by God without thereby preventing a greater good.

c. Unpreventable by God consistent with eternal laws.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

It is not event/problem/difficulty/temptation that determines whom we are, but our reaction to those events/problems/difficulties/temptations.

[Brian 2.0]

Thanks Log. I'll read that over.

It is not event/problem/difficulty/temptation that determines whom we are, but our reaction to those events/problems/difficulties/temptations.

I don't think we're really addressing the same things here. I'm not talking about "who we are". Unless you are trying to say suffering in relative (i.e. What one views and suffering can actually be viewed as good).

I just trying to answer two basic questions:

WHAT causes people to suffer

What COULD God do about it if He wanted to

I guess I need some further clarification on what your response relates to.

[thesometimesaint]

There is a near infinite number of causes for people to suffer from a stubbed toe, to a marriage that falls apart, to the pain of death.

No parent WANTS to see their child suffer, However we do know that they will. God will do nothing that interferes with our agency. To do so would render him not God, but the Devil. God wants us to make good choices, to learn from our experiences the good from the evil.

[CASteinman]

Suffering occurs because of one (or a combination) of the following two things:

1. NATURE in action
   
   • Natural Disasters (floods, earthquakes, etc)
     
   • Physical Laws (Gravity when you fall off a cliff, etc.)
     
   • Body Function (cancer, chemical depression, etc.)
     

• AGENCY in action
  
  • Someone else’s actions or inactions upon you. (Intentional or unintentional)
    
  • Your own actions or inactions. (Intentional or unintentional)
    

I believe that somewhere a prophet of God (or maybe a commentator? -- can't recall) has put together almost exactly such a list. Slightly different wording but pretty much the same.

With one exception. Some people suffer as a special assignment from God for his purposes in their life. This is claimed to be rare and unique to each individual so chosen.

I don't particularly like that idea but it seems that the scriptures support it sufficiently that I accept it.

I will see if I can find a reference to this list that is nearly a duplicate of yours.

[CASteinman]

By the way, I am sorry you are a non-believer. That is a type of suffering too.

[CV75]

I've been doing a lot of thought and reading

Maybe there is some common ground in these ideas, based on what you posted:

Suffering occurs because of a certain bad, unpleasant or other negatively affective meaning we attach to our experience of events, based on our senses and perceptions. The events are caused by nature or agency in action, but our response is entirely subjective and internal.

God influences nature, which has no say in the matter at it is something that is acted upon. God influences agency and as a subset, our subjective and internal response only if we allow it. God killing someone is not impinging on their agency (they have already merited its loss), only the realization of the intended event.

God does not have the ability to interfere with man’s agency without ceasing to be God or without all things ceasing to exist, and therefore cannot prevent any and all suffering (our subjective and internal response to events) from occurring.

[DBMormon]

By the way, I am sorry you are a non-believer. That is a type of suffering too.

In your opinion. It may not be a desired outcome but I don't think it is fair to say he is suffering.

I may have worded it as unfortunate in my view but I wouldn't say a non believer is suffering.

God will work with each of his children in his own time and in his own way.

Edited June 11, 2012 by reelmormon

[Brian 2.0]

God will do nothing that interferes with our agency. To do so would render him not God, but the Devil. God wants us to make good choices, to learn from our experiences the good from the evil.

God does not have the ability to interfere with man’s agency without ceasing to be God or without all things ceasing to exist, and therefore cannot prevent any and all suffering (our subjective and internal response to events) from occurring.

This is the meat of the debate to me. Agency is often the answer given to certain situations of suffering as if God doesn't have a choice -- his hands are tied.

I agree God can't control our choice. But that doesn't mean that God cannot prevent any choice from actually being carried out. He COULD, if he wanted, prevent any choice we make from actual coming to fruition -- either by influencing us so that we changed our mind of our own free will, or cause someone to occur that would prevent us from carrying out our choice (including killing us).

He may have good reason to NOT do this (greater good, experience, etc) but God CAN prevent any choice from coming to fruition if he chose.

Do we agree on that?

[CV75]

He may have good reason to NOT do this (greater good, experience, etc) but God CAN prevent any choice from coming to fruition if he chose.

Do we agree on that?

I agree with that in many instances, but there are some choices He cannot prevent from coming to fruition, such as those choices we make that are in line with His will. For example, He cannot prevent one's choice to have faith in Christ (or a desire to believe, and/or experiment with a desire to beleive, in Christ) from resulting in a knowledge that what one experiences as a result of that faith or belief is good. He could not prevent the brother of Jared from seeing His finger.

[Brian 2.0]

Suffering occurs because of a certain bad, unpleasant or other negatively affective meaning we attach to our experience of events, based on our senses and perceptions. The events are caused by nature or agency in action, but our response is entirely subjective and internal.

I'm pretty sure I agree completely with this statement. The concept of suffering being a response that is subjective and internal is something I'm trying to work in, but it too often I fear that such a line of thinking often results in placing the "blame" for the suffering in the hands of the sufferer, which is dangerous to me.

While our response is entirely subjective and internal, would you agree that there are scenarios where that subjective and internal suffering is justified, even in the eyes of God?

A concrete example... A 14 year old girl is kidnapped on her way to school and held chained in his basement, physically and sexually abused for 10 years by her captors until she is finally killed by her captor.

The kidnapped girl suffers. And her parents upon hearing what happened to her suffer. I would think God and anyone would say that that suffering, while internal and subjective, is completely appropriate and justified, and no one would ever say "that suffering is your issue."

My point is that God COULD have stopped the "event" of kidnapping and abuse if He wanted to, even though it involved agency in action.

He could have done any of the following, plus probably an infinite number of other options:

- caused the neighbor to fall asleep in his van and miss the girl as she walked by

- sent an angel to appear to him in the van and told him not to kidnap her, and he changes his mind on kidnapping her

- sent an angel to appear to him in the van and told him not to kidnap her, and he still tries, but God gives him a heart attack before he can kidnap her

- speak via the spirit to her or her parent to either walk another way to school that day, or to drive in a car to school, thus preventing the kidnap

- sent an angel to appear to the girl as she walked to school telling her not walk that way to school

- sent an angel, appearing as a mortal man, to simply walk down the sidewalk a few feet behind her thus preventing the kidnapper from taking her

The options are probably infinite... the point being that God could have prevented the EVENT that caused the suffering, even though it involved agency in action. All of the examples above, and infinite more would do the trick and would not violate the "God cannot interfere with agency" argument.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

I agree with that in many instances, but there are some choices He cannot prevent from coming to fruition, such as those choices we make that are in line with His will. For example, He cannot prevent one's choice to have faith in Christ (or a desire to believe, and/or experiment with a desire to beleive, in Christ) from resulting in a knowledge that what one experiences as a result of that faith or belief is good.

I'm pretty sure I agree with this statement in full. There are instances in scripture where it appears God "harded someone heart (for ex. Deut 2:30 But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy God ^ahardened his spirit, and made his heart ^bobstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.). Not sure how that fit in yet to your above statement.

That aside, I think I agree. Let me try to restate your thought, while incorporating my thoughts which are relating to suffering...

When a choice is in line with God's will, God cannot prevent that choice from coming to fruition. In regards to choices that bring about events that bring suffering... One of two thing occured: 1) God could have prevented the choice from coming to fruition but chose not to for some reason, or 2) God could NOT have prevented the choice from coming to fruition because it was in line with God's will, making the resulting "event" in line with God's will.

Do you agree with that?

He could not prevent the brother of Jared from seeing His finger.

I think he could have if it wasn't in line with God's will. Just because the brother of Jared had the faith to see God's finger, doesn't mean God is BOUND to show him His finger. God could have chosen to illuminate the rocks via whatever method he chose. "The brother of Jared seeing God's finger" is not an event God had no power to prevent from happening.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[CV75]

While our response is entirely subjective and internal, would you agree that there are scenarios where that subjective and internal suffering is justified, even in the eyes of God?

A concrete example...

For me, “blame” is only attributable when the cause or the experience of suffering are in consequence of acting willfully against God’s will. And only God is entitled to assign blame.

I agree that there are scenarios where subjective and internal suffering is justified in the eyes of God. I also agree that God can stop or prevent any event that runs counter to His will and purpose*, meaning He cannot stop or prevent the kind of events I described in post #11. If He did, He would stop Himself and He would stop being God.

* I would add another consideration, that the Atonement is an example of eventually and most effectively reversing all subjective and internal suffering (justified or not), according to the agency of the beneficiary.

[Brian 2.0]

For me, “blame” is only attributable when the cause or the experience of suffering are in consequence of acting willfully against God’s will. And only God is entitled to assign blame.

I agree that there are scenarios where subjective and internal suffering is justified in the eyes of God. I also agree that God can stop or prevent any event that runs counter to His will and purpose*, meaning He cannot stop or prevent the kind of events I described in post #11. If He did, He would stop Himself and He would stop being God.

* I would add another consideration, that the Atonement is an example of eventually and most effectively reversing all subjective and internal suffering (justified or not), according to the agency of the beneficiary.

CV75... I think we are in full agreement. And i think we are going into territory of WHYs, which I wouldn't not like to do with this thread (but I would like to later). So... looking at the last statement of my OP, I have added some terms to accommodate your point, which is valid. I'm trying to figure out what to change in my OP.

OLD last summary statement:

God has the ability to prevent ANY and ALL suffering from occurring while still granting man’s free will. Therefore ANY and ALL suffering that occurs happens because God has made a choice to either CAUSE or ALLOW it.

NEW last summary statement:

Unless the event is part of God's will,God has the ability to prevent ANY and ALL events that can cause suffering from occurring while still granting man’s free will. Therefore ANY and ALL events that occur that can cause suffering, happen because God has made a choice to either CAUSE or ALLOW it.

You agree?

Edited June 11, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[CV75]

I'm pretty sure I agree with this statement in full. There are instances in scripture where it appears God "harded someone heart (for ex. Deut 2:30 But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy God ^ahardened his spirit, and made his heart ^bobstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.). Not sure how that fit in yet to your above statement.

The scholars maintain that these examples actually mean that because God is good, and the rebellious are not, that the injection of further goodness into their corrupt system agitates their rebellious nature and thus they harden their heart (as when light introduced behind a dark image makes it appear darker); or that it is just an old-fashioned, oriental way of saying they hardened their hearts against God.

That aside, I think I agree. Let me try to restate your thought, while incorporating my thoughts which are relating to suffering...

When a choice is in line with God's will, God cannot prevent that choice from coming to fruition. In regards to choices that bring about events that bring suffering... One of two thing occured: 1) God could have prevented the choice from coming to fruition but chose not to for some reason, or 2) God could NOT have prevented the choice from coming to fruition because it was in line with God's will, making the resulting "event" in line with God's will.

Do you agree with that?

I would add to the first sentence, “even if it results in suffering on some level.” Then, keeping in mind that choices that bring about events that bring suffering may or may not be in line with God’s will, 1) would only occur when the choice and/or the event are not in line with His will; and 2) would occur as stated.

As I mentioned above, the Atonement allows a great deal to be done contrary to God's will in the short-run because He took the consequential suffering upon Himself on an eternal level. According to His will, He suffered everything we would/could so that He could remove it from us and make us as if we hadn't suffered without benefiting from it.

I think he could have if it wasn't in line with God's will. Just because the brother of Jared had the faith to see God's finger, doesn't mean God is BOUND to show him His finger. God could have chosen to illuminate the rocks via whatever method he chose. "The brother of Jared seeing God's finger" is not an event God had no power to prevent from happening.

That depends on the use of the word “faith.” If “faith” is understood to be synonymous with belief or positive thinking, then I would agree. If it is understood that the object of faith must be a true, eternal principle, then God is indeed bound, for it is His word.

[CV75]

NEW last summary statement:

Unless the event is part of God's will,God has the ability to prevent ANY and ALL events that can cause suffering from occurring while still granting man’s free will. Therefore ANY and ALL events that occur that can cause suffering, happen because God has made a choice to either CAUSE or ALLOW it.

You agree?

I agree, but I’d be worried if I were you, having me your primary respondent!

At some point you may need to differentiate between “free will” and “agency.” For our conversation, I take “free will” to mean “agency” as described in D&C 93 (more like "moral agency," but also something more than that).

Also, the way that God exercises His agency may rely less on His current choices than on His confluent knowledge of all things past, present and future.

[Brian 2.0]

I agree, but I’d be worried if I were you, having me your primary respondent!

Ha! I would like more challenges if there are some, but I am on a tough quest in looking for a statement that all could agree with. So I enjoy responses.

At some point you may need to differentiate between “free will” and “agency.” For our conversation, I take “free will” to mean “agency” as described in D&C 93 (more like "moral agency," but also something more than that).

Understood. Definitions can be a beast sometimes, but are often necessary.

Also, the way that God exercises His agency may rely less on His current choices than on His confluent knowledge of all things past, present and future.

I would say God's confluent knowledge of all thing past, present and future inform ALL of God's current choices. They better! Otherwise God's a hard man to trust.

[dtorge26]

GOD IN NATURE:

God has complete and total control over every aspect of NATURE. Jesus calmed the stormy seas (1a), walked on water (1b), and raised Lazurus from the dead (1c).

I'm stuck at this point above, and I'm not convinced that it is really mormon doctrine that God has total control over every aspect of nature. Joseph Smith placed God inside of space and time, and I think its fair to say that a number of latter-day prophets support the notion that God was not the first thing ever to exist (i.e. uncreated intelligence, unorganized matter, etc.). In other words, nature itself probably pre-dates the mormon God. I think it then becomes difficult to support the notion that God controls ALL aspects of something which pre-dated even Him. And certainly, one doesn't need to control ALL aspects of nature in order to walk on water and raise the dead. He really just needs some very expert and complete knowledge of that nature, and how to manipulate it.

Suffering may very well be built into the fabric of nature at a fundamental level, where God has embraced it, and understands how it relates to the achievement of the ultimate states of joy and well-being.

[Brian 2.0]

GOD IN NATURE:

God has complete and total control over every aspect of NATURE. Jesus calmed the stormy seas (1a), walked on water (1b), and raised Lazurus from the dead (1c).

I'm stuck at this point above, and I'm not convinced that it is really mormon doctrine that God has total control over every aspect of nature. Joseph Smith placed God inside of space and time, and I think its fair to say that a number of latter-day prophets support the notion that God was not the first thing ever to exist (i.e. uncreated intelligence, unorganized matter, etc.). In other words, nature itself probably pre-dates the mormon God. I think it then becomes difficult to support the notion that God controls ALL aspects of something which pre-dated even Him. And certainly, one doesn't need to control ALL aspects of nature in order to walk on water and raise the dead. He really just needs some very expert and complete knowledge of that nature, and how to manipulate it.

Suffering may very well be built into the fabric of nature at a fundamental level, where God has embraced it, and understands how it relates to the achievement of the ultimate states of joy and well-being.

I have thought of this myself. And Mormon theology does have "God cannot violate Eternal Law". And I want to try and work this is. But I can think of no scenarios with nature, where God could not intervene to control or prevent it. And I find instances in scripture where God has intervened to control the aspects of nature.

Specific examples are needed to try and break my statement, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. If you have a specific nature example that we know God cannot deal with them please post it.

I guess one could say that each situation is completely independent of one another. Jesus could calm THAT stormy sea, but he CAN'T calm EVERY stormy seas. But that seems problematic to me.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[CV75]

Specific examples are needed to try and break my statement, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. If you have a specific nature example that we know God cannot deal with them please post it.

I think keeping the scope of "nature" to the physical laws / phenomena observed and used by those who inhabit this planet might allow God to intervene, for discussion purposes, without much argument since He does not subject Himself to those.

[dtorge26]

Specific examples are needed to try and break my statement, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. If you have a specific nature example that we know God cannot deal with them please post it.

I think these are applicable situations, although obviously difficult to confirm for certain:

SPIRITUAL/QUALITATIVE:

We should not expect that God CAN grant eternal life to the individual who is an evildoer and/or unbeliever, and who never repents.

We should not expect that God CAN create a soul who experiences pleasure without ever experiencing or being capable of experiencing pain, as these are derived through mutual existence and relationship to each other.

PHYSICAL:

We should not expect that God CAN create or destroy energy.

We should not expect that God CAN create a system which does not tend naturally towards greater disorder.

There are probably others, but these come to mind most readily.

[Brian 2.0]

I think these are applicable situations, although obviously difficult to confirm for certain:

SPIRITUAL/QUALITATIVE:

We should not expect that God CAN grant eternal life to the individual who is an evildoer and/or unbeliever, and who never repents.

We should not expect that God CAN create a soul who experiences pleasure without ever experiencing or being capable of experiencing pain, as these are derived through mutual existence and relationship to each other.

PHYSICAL:

We should not expect that God CAN create or destroy energy.

We should not expect that God CAN create a system which does not tend naturally towards greater disorder.

There are probably others, but these come to mind most readily.

I'm pretty sure I agree with all this. I have never made the claim and God can to do anything he wants. My claims are within a certain bounds. One can completely believe that God is bound to Eternal Law such as "Mercy can never rob Justice."

But those things don't seem to come into play in my OP. It seems in those arenas I specified, God has complete power.

Your examples are specific, but are not relevant to my OP and the theory behind... at least as far as I can tell.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[dtorge26]

I'm pretty sure I agree with all this. I have never made the claim and God can to do anything he wants. My claims are within a certain bounds. One can completely believe that God is bound to Eternal Law such as "Mercy can never rob Justice."

But those things don't seem to come into play in my OP. It seems in those arenas I specified, God has complete power.

Your examples are specific, but are not relevant to my OP and the theory behind... at least as far as I can tell.

"With his total control of nature, God has the ability to prevent ANY and ALL suffering resulting from NATURE in action"

This is the piece of the OP that I think relates. Without total control in nature, it seems the "consequences" to natural events are not necessarily controllable either. So it becomes difficult to state that ALL suffering is the result of God's will.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes God COULD stop us from exercising our agency, but by doing so he would cease to be God.