Loading...I decided to take a stroll down memory lane and look at posts I made at the beginning of the blog, and came upon this one, made almost exactly eight years ago today. Since I’ve been talking about Ecclesiastes and the meaning of life, and, consequently, the meaning of suffering, it is particularly relevant, now more than ever in recent history. It’s ultimately about whether humans *have* to suffer if God created the world and life in it. And weirdly, it involves a connection between Dinesh D’Souza and tectonic plates.
*******************************************************************
I have always found it interesting that when I talk about how there can be suffering in the world if there is a good God who is in charge of it, someone will tell me that it is all because of “free will.” I think most of us – not Sam Harris, of course, or some others, but most of us – think that there is such a thing as free will, that our actions are not completely determined for us but to some extent (not completely! Or even nearly completely) we can decide what to do (we can’t decide to walk on the ceiling without special equipment; most of us can’t decide to understand the general theory of relativity; and so on. But we can decide whether to cross the street, or go to a movie, or punch our neighbor in the nose). Moreover, most of us would agree that a good deal of suffering happens as the result of humans exercising free will. Your own broken nose may be because your neighbor was exercising his own free will. You may have chosen to jilt a boyfriend. You may have decided to burn down a church. Kings have started wars; Nazis have implemented the Final Solution. And on and on.
When someone tells me that all suffering is the result of free will, however, I quickly tell them that I don’t believe it. People do not….
If you want to continue reading, just join the blog. We have free memberships just now, during the crisis; and if you want to pay the small fee for a regular membership, even better! All the money goes directly to charities helping those in need in this time of very real need. So either way, go ahead and join up!
Tectonic plates served one interesting facet in the Genesis account. Through the process of “subduction” we have tectonic plates AND continents. Subduction created the granite which rose above the water line and formed the first earth on an oceanic planet. First evidence for this, via oxygen isotopes, was in 2020. Thus God separated the water from the earth.
We need to be careful about what we mock.
First the “heavens” and then the earth.
And we are now observers on the waters (for earth was an ocean, cloud planet.)
Then the skies opened
And the land rose
And life emerged on the land (fresh water actually)
and then “God commanded the seas to bring forth life.”
and finally man.
This first Genesis account is written in symbolic language,but the underlying sequence is readily apparent.
Without a creator we are left with that most unscientific of propositions – without reason whatsoever the universe created itself before it existed.
It is striking, though, that the most brilliant cosmologists ever to have been on the human stage decidedly do not think their views are unscientific.
Science tells us there’s a reason, a natural cause and effect for all things. This just makes the Beginning even more unfathomable. Not even the most genius of minds claims an answer for this.
Even more unscientific is declaring a creator that is eternal while claiming the universe had to be created. One can easily ask, “where did the creator come from”, or did God create himself?
Cosmologists claim that what lies “outside” of the universe is a nonsensical question, like asking what is north of the North Pole. The expanding universe doesn’t expand into anything, it’s creating space and time as it expands. This makes the First Event interesting – a non-existent universe cannot create itself.
What lies outside, without time, space or even physical laws, is beyond our comprehension. Asking what appears to be a clever question about the nature of this realm is pointless.
You may have missed out on concepts of multiverses and others where what we call the universe isn’t all there is anyway. But I’m not saying it is true. Just that it is also ridiculous for people to make up a god and give him the attributes they need to explain what they don’t understand. So if the universe can’t be eternal in one form or another, etc. Without having to be created, there is no reason that a god also had to have been created. You can’t have whatever definitions you wish for one and forbid them to the other.
I have been thinking about this exact issue recently. Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross just posted a podcast (https://rtbpodcast.podbean.com/e/rtblive-extra-global-warming-qa-with-dr-hugh-ross/). He thinks “natural evil” is a misnomer because we live in the best of all possible worlds given God’s plan for humanity. Everything is finely tuned, not just universe-wide, but on the earth, with the exception of when humans don’t fulfil their stewardship.
It’s an interesting attempt to answer natural evil. You mention D’Souza’s claim that tectonic plates are required for the origin of human life, and then claim this isn’t consistent with Adam/Eve special creation. Yet, if tectonic plates are necessary for the *continued* flourishing of humanity, then that would be a way through your objection. Dr Ross claims that natural cycles on Earth can be seen as finely-tuned.
Just as fire and water are necessary for life and yet also risk destroying life, perhaps what we view as gratuitous natural evil is really a necessity? You note that God cannot be expected to instantiate states of affairs that entail logical contradictions, but then you ask why the laws of physics restrain God. Perhaps given God’s purposes for humanity, the laws of physics must be as they are now.
My view is that anyone who thinks we live “in the best of all possible worlds” needs to read Voltaire’s Candide…..
Question in line with your newest book: In the age to come, is such natural evil said to disappear (lamb lying with the lion)? If so, a world with less/no natural evil is conceivable. Therefore, God must have a morally sufficient reason to allow the natural world to be the way it is now.
Thinking out loud. Needed for free will? Without natural evil, can life still be meaningful? Lack of challenges to overcome? If there were no natural evil, would that make God’s existence so overwhelmingly evident so as to be coercive and deprive a free will choice to follow him?
If natural evil is needed now but not in the age to come, what does that say about the type of life in the age to come? No mountains to climb in case we injure ourselves?
Any theologians here with ideas?
Yup, it’s an important line of argumentation! (Theologians, of course, traditionally have talked about “sin” messing it all up, so it wasn’t actually created this way. It’s all our fault!)
Saying that, didn’t Adam and Eve have to keep eating from the tree of life to ensure they wouldn’t die? Wouldn’t this mean that the initial conditions in Genesis had some natural evils?
Also, I suppose theologians might suggest the Satan and associated dark powers as behind some of the natural evil, so God isn’t directly implicated. Darwin wrote to a friend that “What a book a Devil’s Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature.” Perhaps, like Caiaphas, he spoke more truly than he knew. I’m sceptical of this as a sound interpretation of natural evil in the Bible. Genesis 6 mentions sons of God having relations with daughters of men. How much independence did God give these cosmic forces to change the world and its natural forces for evil?
No, Genesis doesn’t say whether one bite would do the trick or not. But my sense is that ancient Hebrew authors simply did not think of “free will” the way we do (and that simply seems to be “common” sense to us) in our post-Enlightenment world. They simply had no philosophical problems / issues with it, the way we do.
I’m no theologian but I would address your thinking aloud to the parents of the very many babies who die (for example) of malaria after almost indescribable suffering.
God is either fiction or monster. Or love is meaningless.
Take your pick.
I’m going with God being fiction and love having meaning.
Or read Darwin. What we often forget is that natural selection doesn’t necessarily choose the “best” option; it chooses one that happens to be “good enough.”
Not familiar with Hugh Ross I will check that out
but would agree with the
>He thinks “natural evil” is a misnomer because
>we live in the best of all possible worlds given God’s
>plan for humanity. Everything is finely tuned, not just
> universe-wide, but on the earth, with the exception of when
> humans don’t fulfil their stewardship.
other than the phrase with the we line “in the best of all possible worlds”, that makes it simple as Dr Ehrman has done to recommend “Candide”
there is no reason to say tectonic plates or resulting earthquakes are “evil”. I do not know anywhere in the bible that is implied, same with rivers overflowing their banks or the reverse lack rain
maybe lack of rain is associated with people not following God, but of course Jesus said
God causes the rain to fall on both good and evil
Interesting tidbit about rain: Back in 1986, when the state of Georgia went to the Supreme Court to get a ruling upholding its sodomy laws, Georgia suffered its worst drought ever from March, when the arguments were made, through July, more than a month after the Court agreed with Georgia. It got so bad that the governor asked people in his state to pray for rain. That same day, Georgia got rain – hail, thunderstorms, hurricane-force winds.
The ancient Hittites called hail etc. as signs the storm god was angry with them. Looks like they had a point!
PS: Massachusetts, the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, has yet to be hit by any natural disaster.
It might make sense to believe in a god or gods that are not all-powerful. Omnipotence seems to be demanding too much of anything. Or a god or gods that are not creators of this universe at all, but outside of it and aware of it but not able to do much about it. Not very useful! If we were like robots, all empty inside, no subjective experience at all, there would be no issue of suffering. Little kids blow up toy soldiers, for instance, but the toy soldiers aren’t suffering– at least I hope not. So the problem of suffering could be the problem of consciousness in another form. And the issue of consciousness might be more fundamental. If organisms had no conscious experience, there would be no suffering. There would be nothing there to FEEL.
Thank you for reposting this. This argument (God needs tectonic plates) has come up in my Sunday School and at least one sermon following the Indian Ocean tsunami. It turns out that this piece of “logic” was being peddled by none other than our own Methodist Adam Hamilton. This man was so big that he had been sarcastically referred to as the Pope of Methodism. It was a supreme disappointment to me that a leader in a denomination that has occasionally avoided the worst impulses of more conservative churches was spreading such easily refuted theology. However, it is reassuring to know that I am not alone in viewing such explanations as the trite, just-so stories that they are.
There is and has been for decades a huge cottage industry by preachers, theologians and Christian philosophers trying to defend the compatibility of existence of natural evil with an omnipotent all-loving God. There is of course no shortage of robust rebuttals against theodicy. Here is one quick and easy rebuttal to D’Souza’s view that tectonic plates, hurricanes and other natural environmental conditions causing human suffering, are essential for existence of human life in the first place: it is incompatible with Christian eschatology that one day God will bring about a new heaven and new earth where embodied human beings will live in peace and happiness without suffering. That is, according to this eschatology, it is perfectly feasible for God to create a world without natural evil. The challenge for D’Souza is to answer why didn’t God create such a world in the first place.
The answer is “Reincarnation”
Both the Bible and the Quran have multiple indications to it. Unfortunately the majority of the Jews, Christians and Muslims deny it, but it has been said in the Hebrew Bible that reward and punishment are to be given on erath, not somewhere else.
Proverbs 11: 31 Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.
Also the Quran asserts that all people enter the fire (Hell), but the righteous will be saved:
Quran 19:71 There is not one of you but shall approach it. That is a fixed ordinance of thy Lord. 72 Then We shall rescue those who kept from evil, and leave the evil-doers crouching there.
The Quran directly points to the multiple creation of people:
Quran 2: 28 How disbelieve ye in Allah when ye were dead and He gave life to you! Then He will give you death, then life again, and then unto Him ye will return
However, not every hardship in life is necessarily a punishment:
Quran 2:155 And surely We shall try you with something of fear and hunger, and loss of wealth and lives and crops; but give glad tidings to the steadfast
Suffering (slipped disk here) is the very things that helped me to realise that life is far bigger than the tiny windows through which we view it. One moment we are going along this path healthy and whole (if we are lucky), the next everything has changed due to a car crash, a financial withdrawal, COVID-19 or something similar.
I don’t pretend to be happy that people suffer, I think there is a lot we can to do either alleviate it, or even better to stop it before it happens in the first place (like building better housing in earthquake regions. But I hope it can be useful, I want it to be useful.
Could it be that without suffering we would unable to be empathetic? It’s something I tell myself when I am suffering and trying to look for a silver lining. But something in the back of my head always seems to say it isn’t true.
Yes, I think it’s true that it would be hard to be as empathetic if there were no suffering. I just wish the suffering involved hangnails instead of massive starvation.
“ Yes, I think it’s true that it would be hard to be as empathetic if there were no suffering.”
On the other hand, if there was – literally – no suffering, why would empathy be needed? Would it even be a thing?
It’s kind of like saying that the reason we need gardens is because they give us a place to put our fertilizer.
Bart: ” Are we really to believe that a God who created this universe is unable to create a world that could sustain life and not have tectonic plates?” Yes we are, or at least, I am. I prefer a less-than-all-powerful God to an Almighty one who could have avoided natural evil but instead predestined catastrophic earthquakes, floods, mosquitoes and corona viruses. Friends accuse me of Deism, but thankfully that is no longer a hanging offense. And it’s better than the idea another friend seriously espouses, that God is an evil monster for creating the world as he did.
How can we live in anything other than a completely determined universe if cause and effect are true? What is free will? Where does it reside? How free is it? If my decisions result from a combination of my genes, prior history and the environment, how is there any freedom as I (however we describe ‘I’) have no control over any of those things? However, as the philosopher Peter Strawson argued in his illuminating essay, ‘Freedom and Resentment,’ in 1962, not one one of us behaves as if we did not possess free will. In fact, our entire moral order is based on that premise but that does not make it true. He was a ‘Compatabilist,’ in the David Hume tradition: determinism is true but so is the fact that none of us acts in accordance with that truth. It seems more likely to me that every effect has a prior cause than that free will exists – they can’t both be true. One or two philosophers have tried to argue that quantum theory resolves the paradox but I am afraid it doesn’t.
God doesn’t seem to have a problem overriding people’s freewill, at least not in the Bible – Paul’s Damascus Road experience is one example.
If God is arbitrarily defined was one who created the universe and who is capable of intervening in it, then we inevitably get all these problems. Another definition is worth considering: a God who is created along with the universe, who is constrained to obey the laws of the universe, and whose actions involve urging us to intervene on the side of good. This seems like a more grownup God.
The question then is why to think such a being exists.
I understand your point against Dinesh’s position. Its a good argument. Of course, it’s not the only argument Dinesh has for the existence of God in spite of suffering. In his book on suffering he broadens out this point and adds many others. I wish he could respond to your forceful rebuttal. In the end, there is no conclusive argument for or against the existence of God. To explore the existence or non existence of God I think we have to accept that there are no proofs either way. The question for me is then, why do you believe or not believe?
He could have! We had three public debates on the matter! And yes, that is my question as well.
To blame God is to deny our own responsibility.
> To blame God is to deny our own responsibility.
Indeed this is correct
It certainly can be and often is correct! But there are plenty of people who are angry with God about the suffering yet devote their entire lives to helping those who experience it. And lots of people who take responsibility don’t even believe in God, and so don’t blame him for a thing. I myself, for example, don’t blame God, since I’m an atheist. But I still think I’m responsible to help.
recent prophetic teaching is that God suffers in extremis to equal or greater degree than humans (His children)
God created us with ears and eyes and said he will test us to see who will be grateful and who will be ungrateful.
Who do you thank ? I mean, really – who does one thank?
Mankind needs law.
Why hasn’t anyone who deny the existence of God invented a Just universal book encompassing what mankind needs. Laws of economics, belief, family law – Gender laws, political, ritual, criminal, animal laws, etiquette …..ect.
Interesting thoughts. I myself question free will all the time, like Sam Harris. Because there are times where I am driven to a certain direction or decision without feeling it was my doing. For example, speakers often say,their best speeches have come when *something* overtakes them internally and words just roll out of their mouth smoothly, coherent and without much thinking. Oddly, they don’t remember much of what they said afterwards, feel exausted mentally and surprisingly, the original subject/thought presentation was changed somewhere along their talk unknowingly. Alternatively, if God’s plan was to redeem people through Jesus, the choice for Judas Iscariot as an Apostle was made for him. He could not have exercised *free will* to overturn his betrayal of Jesus and the plan of God and what was in store for him. He was chosen for that purpose.
“(I stress this point because whenever I indicate in a public forum that I can’t explain such things, I get tons of emails from people who are more than happy to explain them to me!)”
LOL! Exactly true. Explain thát to someone… Very funny
I’ve never met anybody who doesn’t have conflicts in his/her system of beliefs, and never having thought much of D’Souza (who I’ll never meet) doesn’t surprise me much that he’s got them too.
I continue to think Job has more to say about this than Ecclesiastes, because the truth is, we have no idea what an all-powerful divine agency could or couldn’t do, and we shouldn’t pretend that we do. Where were we when the universe was created? Same place we’ll be when it ends–nowhere. Because the truth is, it wasn’t created for our benefit, and it’s pure egocentrism to think that it was. It’s also very human.
Everything we have ever achieved has come about by virtue of our struggling against the constraints and dangers and adversities of mortal existence. Without all that, we’d just be cogs in a machine. Never really alive.
I don’t accept the argument that if God existed (and wasn’t indifferent to us), everything would be peaches and cream. A finite being is incapable of judging or even perceiving an infinite one. Non sequitur. And it’s a strawman argument to say that means some suffer so others rejoice. We all suffer. And to take even one breath is to rejoice.
Well said, 8 years ago and still today!
When non-physicists go on about the “laws of physics”, they should be aware that these “laws” are descriptive laws, not prescriptive laws. To say that the laws of physics are somehow connected to a creator god is a mistake since the laws of physics are not grounded in some celestial lawgiver.
So what are these laws of physics? All of physics rests on a handful of conservation laws (conservation of mass- energy, conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, conservation of electric charge, and several quantum mechanical conservation laws). These conservation laws come from symmetries of the void, i.e. from space-time symmetries, and from symmetries among families of fundamental particles. The mathematical basis of these conservation laws is group theory. Other less fundamental laws come from geometry, e.g. Newton’s law of universal gravitation arises from the geometry of a sphere and likewise for the electromagnetic field.
It was the mathematician Emmy Noether who first worked out the connections between symmetries and conservation laws in physics (the Noether Theorem, 1915). That theorem plus Einstein’s General Relativity Theory and the Standard Model of Particle Physics are the fundamental components of modern physics.
Well, facts on a local scale do not mean they are applicable to the universe as a whole.
Conservation of energy is not true:
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
also read
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
Sean Carrol and John Baez use general relativity to show energy conservation is not true on cosmological scales.
I suppose we should also keep in mind that modern physics can only explain 4% of the matter and energy in the visible universe. In addition, there are large sectors of the energy/interaction strength graph that are inaccessible to experiment – and will always be, therefore our best models and theories of reality will forever be beyond the reach of verification.
At a minimum, this drives a stake into the heart of materialism – our best science acknowledges that we our limited in our understanding of physical reality, that this has been true in the past and will be for all time.
Given that most deterministic philosophies also derive their conclusions based on physical laws and are therefore critically supported by some form of materialism, means they are also without scientific basis and are just affirmations without basis in modern physics nor any experimentally verifiable scientific theory.
It’s interesting you mix free will and this topic together from a another perspective. I’m often baffled, when watching your debates and having my own discussions, at how some people almost can’t seem to acknowledge this distinction between natural evil and moral evil. It really makes me wonder if that in itself is a minor argument against free will.
It’s not the main point of your post, but have you looked into the free will thing on its own at any length? If so, any details on where you landed? Other than Sam, have you happened to take a look at the work of Daniel Wegner?
Not Wegner, but I’ve read other things. The physiological arguments are most perplexing to me (which indicate that judgements are made for us by our brain before we exercise any conscious thought to them) The philosophical arguments are pretty compelling taht even if we have free will on some level, there’s nowhere near anything like actual/full free will.
Yep. Among many examples: Clin Neurophysiol. 2007;118(6):1179–1192 and ANN NEUROL 2016;80:5–12 Both by Mark Hallet.
Sounds like that is the sort of stuff Wegner talks about. The studies seem to suggest it’s as if one part of the brain is telling the other part of the brain what it did as a courtesy, and we have the illusion that “we” initiated it. Of course that is massively anthropomorphising what’s going on, but intriguing nonetheless. Heard an interesting quote from John Hopfield recently: “Consciousness may be your effort to explain to yourself that which you’ve already done.” May be a bit of a stretch, but I do wonder how this may play into the memory research you did in Jesus Before the Gospels.
Thanks for that paper Kirk.
Possibly our physical brain instinctively reacting to the physical world before our consciousness becomes aware of it. An argument for the separation of our consciousness from our physical brain.
BTW, the great British-American mathematician John Conway passed away 11 April 2020 due to complications from COVID-19. He was an emeritus professor at Princeton University and is most widely known as the inventor of the computer game called The Game of Life (1970).
This simulation of cellular automata illustrates how a few simple rules and a few initial conditions can result in a succession of generations (configurations) of increasing complexity, some of which persist for numerous generations. It illustrates the phenomena of emergence and self-organization that are central to numerous fields of science.
The Game of Life implies that complexity does not necessarily require a designer who/that is more complex than the things being designed. In particular, it supports Darwinian evolution and refutes creationism (e.g. Paley’s argument from design).
Interestingly, in 1980 Benoit Mandelbrot produced the first visualization of a fractal set, a complicated two or three dimensional pattern generated by a single mathematical equation that shows the feature of self-similarity. This feature is commonly found in nature. The Mandelbrot Set is another illustration of great complexity arising from extremely simple rules and a few initial conditions, as it does in the Game of Life.
This is a topic on which our logic and reason fail us utterly. I’m not sure why I believe this, but I do believe there is a purpose to our existence. When we say “we”, “our”, or “I”, we’re referring to our very limited, transient individual selves – our personalities, ego, life experiences, relationships – that make us what what we are here on earth and that we carry around in our heads through life. I think the impermanence and transitory nature of existence is a clue, however. If there is ultimately a purpose to everything, we must be much more – part of a far larger picture than what we think of as ourselves. All that will vanish when we die, so if there is some sort of continued existence after death, it will have to involve something of a far more encompassing nature – a very different type of existence.
On a side note – I would disagree with the statement that most of us can’t decide to understand the General Theory of Relativity. It’s completely understandable if you put in a little effort – no math background needed!
You know Bart, pain and suffering are issues we face and think quite deeply. I recently asked my wife if God created mosquitos and quickly replied I don’t know. We all know those pesky little insects cause much annoyance and yet carry and transfer viruses to humans that can kill us. Zika, West Nile, Dengue and Malaria,which kills a million people, still, every year are natural causes that determine our existence. We are in the way of natural phenomena’s occurring randomly without our ability to intervene/control. In this vast universe we are a part of (a speck ), our lives are constantly dodging its random happenings. This is not God’s doing, if it were he’s sick. A meteor can strike this tiny planet and wipe us out. We are a walking biological/science prodigy endowed with an unexplained consciousness. There is a good chance one day we will seize to exist. Wiped out like Dinosaurs,Mammoths, Passenger Pigeons and Dodo. The author of Ecclesiastes suggested to live it up if you are able because life is short and incomprehensible never knowing when it will be our turn. If a God exists, we *all* benefit from this bereft of uncertainty. Help the poor.
,, yes ,, it is true ,,, 2 trillion galaxies ,,, with some even theorizing on average up to two trillion stars (suns) in each galaxy, in this universe ,,, which many scientists think is in a multi-universe. Adding that basic physical theory claps that there are at least 10 dimensions (6 more if we include “time” as Einstein did, than we live in ,,,, probably MUCH MORE! The only thing this shows me is that reality is greater than even the best mind can comprehend.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on suffering ,,, and thank you for doing your part in a goal to heal this sick world of your charitable contributions, of which I can only offer a sincere respect.
I share a lot of your basic thoughts about “Suffering,” and I admit I don’t have the right tools to understand it and why (if any). The only thing I can understand is that with people, like you, trying to stand up to it and help to do something about it, the suffering lessens. If others also made the same conscious effort with their tools and resources, at least some would be better off.
Thanks!
I’ve the following questions from the interesting book Lost Christianities
As Gnostic were not one group faith but several groups. They have unified believe of salvation by knowledge not by Christ crucifixion and resurrection. I learnt also that some Gnostic groups have special edition of Luke. I’ve the following question:
Regarding the scripture, do they have other scriptures that do not contain the incident? Do we know if their special Luke edition does not contain the incident?
What about the Gnostic Groups that used the 4 Gospels if any, did they say that the incident is not in original scripture?
Regards
All the copies of all the Gospels have the crucifixion. We don’t know of any Gnostic groups that had a special edition of Luke. Gnostics all agreed that Jesus was crucified, so far as we know.
In Lost Christianities: Page 205-2006: Apocalypse of Peter. “What was crucified was not the divine Christ but his physical shell.”
1-“But he into whose hands and feet they are driving the nails is his physical part, which is the substitute. They are putting to shame that which is in his likeness.” (Apoc. Pet. 81)
I see a contradiction here between “his physical part” which refers to the human Jesus himself and “substitute” and “his likeness”. “substitute” and “his likeness” can be understood that it’s a different person (human body) who is substituting Jesus who is put in “his likeness” to fool people.
Can we understand that another person was used as a substitute who was in Jesus’s likeness ?
2- ” you will come to rule over them… You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me” Gospel of Judas.
Can we say that “The man that clothes me” is Jesus likeness and substitute who was crucified ?
Regards
Yes, both texts are differentiating between the physical aspect of Christ, whcih is denigrated, and the spiritual aspect, which is his “real” being.
I understand from Gospel of Judas that it’s Judas who was crucified instead of Jesus.
The crucified was another body Judas not even the shell as in Apoc. Peter.
Is it a right understanding ?
Regards
No. You may want to read the text.
It might be the virus, but this is the memory lane I strolled down after reading your blog.
What if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned. (It was theologically possible). Then they would have lived forever, and they and their children would have continued to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. Then as they outgrew the Garden of Eden (Middle East; Tigris and Euphrates area, Gen. 2:14) and spread out over the whole earth, I wonder if some of them would have settled in areas making them prone to tsunamis,
volcanoes, seismic shifts, etc.
As a side note, given the reproductive rates mentioned in Genesis, and with no-one dying off, the world would eventually be filled with, conservatively, at least a gazillion people.
Thank God Adam and Eve sinned and people started dying off, otherwise the human race would have crowded itself out of existence do to its’ own reproductive success.
That’s my thought for the day.
Thanks again for your perspective.
Jannis (sic) an Indian religion that believes starving one’s self to death is the perfect ending. Not harming one living thing whether plant or microbes in death is the perfect death. There are also many stories of those who died of starvation by choice for the greater good, ie. monks of the Far East because there was a poor harvest that year, or the little girl who brought her sick friend a half cup of food from the prison camp mess saying she had her half on the way back. There is one story of a South Pole expedition where one of the group left the tent to die so that the remainder might live a little longer. IRA soldiers willingly staved themselves to death during their imprisonment during the Thacker administration. Women during their voting rights movement would go on hunger strikes, but the powers in place put a stop to this by forcibly feeding them broth through their noses.
Bart,
Thank you for the post. I am trying to understand it. Feel free to correct me if I mis-represent your thoughts.
Your premise: is that if God exists, He would not let anyone (anything?) suffer (without a good explanation).
Your conclusion: since there is suffering in this world (without a good explanation), then God does not exist.
My extrapolation… if God exists, everything He created would have to be some combination of entirely self-sufficient, entirely equal and perfectly docile. No created thing could ever compete, rise above or exert control/dominance over another or that could lead to suffering. And, as far as the environment, it would have to be perfectly suited to every created thing to avoid all suffering. Everything would live to its lifespan in good health with no suffering.
My questions… in this creation, what would mankind do? If God created everything perfect from inception, what is the purpose of life? Or, is your point that suffering is a mystery, and until someone can explain to you how God can allow suffering, there cannot be a God in any scenario?
Thanks for a thought-provoking post!
No, that’s not exactly my view. My view is that if there is an all-powerful and loving-God who was able to keep people from suffering in extremis (that is, for example, being born disfigured or unable to move; starving to death; incurring horrible diseases that create unbearable physical pain and mental anguish), and wanted to because he loved them, he would. He either doesn’t have the power or the will to do so. Or he doesn’t exist. It’s the age old problem of theodicy. I would nto think it would be an insurmountable problem if everyone in the world had *my* problems and *my* share of suffering. It’s bad enough, but not enough to call into question the existence of God. This of course is only a very simplistic summary of my views. If you want the full dose, see my book God’s Problem.
Dr Bart ..
Let’s say .. for the sake of argument.. That you have got an undeniable *PROOF* of the existence of God and you are in a state of *KNOWING* that God exists ..
How would you explain and deal with Theodicy in this case without using any Holy Book .. only with or through *REASON* .?
You’d probably have to say either that God was evil, or had an evil streak, or was unconcerned with us, or only one of the Gods, or … you’d easily find a solution.
Reading this post reminded me of Job 5:7 which says “Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward.” Interesting enough Job never found out why he suffered.
I think humans *necessarily* have to experience suffering (whether personally or vicariously) in order for them to appreciate that which is good. A child who has never experienced hunger will never know how good it is to have an abundance of food. A person who has never been ill will never fully appreciate good health.
According to Genesis, God did in fact create a world in which there was no suffering but humanity chose to have an intimate acquaintance with both good and evil. That intimate knowledge of both good and evil is with us today and should enable us to make better choices and to hope for a better world in which humans will freely choose good because our experiential knowledge of suffering will lead us to desire good and to reject evil
“I have always found it interesting that when I talk about how there can be suffering in the world if there is a good God who is in charge of it, someone will tell me that it is all because of ‘free will.’”
There is no God because he’s not “good” or because there’s intense suffering? I see no reason to think that a God would submit to your, or anyone else’s, expectations and definitions.
The Christian faith is wrapped around the concept of suffering. Jesus is considered the Suffering Messiah. The Call is to alleviate and conquer suffering in all forms until we are resurrected to a utopian existence. When Christians first began to take care of the sick, they died themselves. That did not stop the mission from moving forward. Getting killed by tornadoes is the reason why scientists study weather patterns. Humanity is not finished with the Christian mission. The timing of its accomplishment is not according to any one particular person’s reasoning and will either.
You reasoned your way out of a God, but God is more than an intellectual endeavor. He does not strive to fit into the box you placed him in.
As I recall, Sam Harris et al make a very good case, one in which Is probably true. Which would cause endless problems in the courts. However, Michael Shermer writes about the concept of “free won’t”. Scientists discovered a specific brain area called the left dorsal frontomedial cortex that becomes activated during intentional decision making. Even when we really want that last piece of cake, and that little voice inside says, “it’s ok, go for it”, a voice i.e. a series of neural pathways leading to cake, can be vetoed by the left dorsal frontomedial cortex brain structure that comes later in the decision pathway and timeline. In the end, we can exert our “Free Won’t” option over our less obvious and less manageable lack of free will.
are there any biblical reasons to assume
“the Kingdom of God”, “the new Jerusalem”, “the new covenant”, “the new heaven and earth”, espoused by many different prophets writers are absent earthquakes/(tectonic plates) ?
I would say there is none,
don’t you think anyone who thinks there are, are bringing in their own preconceived notions of what the perfect world is like?
especially “new covenant” described by jeremiah has zero indication that natural evils are terminated
Yes indeed. In fact, I can’t think of an option.
Your post is on “suffering” and you correlate it with the existence of “natural evil”
But I think you are looking at it, suffering, from a different viewpoint than biblical authors did
We have Jesus who spoke of “Kingdom of God”
Jeremiah, “new covenant”; Isaiah & Zechariah “new heaven and earth”; revelation, “new Jerusalem”
Weren’t all these prophets concerned with and looking forward to the elimination of “suffering” and “evil”?
Were they just at all concerned about what we call “natural evil”? and why not?
Do you have any thoughts on that?
I can think of several instances where these prophets may have seen “natural evils” as not incompatible with their views of the new world God was to bring about
ex
Zech 14:18
>And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not,
>that have no rain; there shall be the plague,
Matt 5:45
>He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and
>sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Lk 13:4
>Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of
>Siloam collapsed on them: Do you think that they were
>more sinful than all the others living in Jerusalem?
Regarding free will and suffering, I recently had an ah ha moment while on a 10-day mediation retreat that I thought might interest you. We are embarking on “intelligent design” with AI. I think the most ethical of designers will make it so AIs cannot do certain things like kill unless it’s in self defense. If we have the inclination to do this, why didn’t the Christian God? Would this have really impinged on free will? We already know free will is not even close to being as free as we think it is.
The other thought is, I do not think we are in a computer simulation as Nick Bostrom has discussed. Why? Because an internal review board of the future would never approve such things. As humans, we would never want to subject simulations with needless suffering.
The fallacy lies in the equation ‘God exists, therefore no suffering. Suffering exists, therefore no God’. That is simply a man-made philosophy non-existent in scripture. It won’t amount to anything scriptural nor will it lead to truths.
Suffering, or the lack thereof, is not an effect of the mere existence of God. In that regard, it’s apples and oranges. Suffering does exists, and yes, it has a lot to do with free will. Here’s the thing: earthquakes, floods and natural disasters might have more to do with free will than one might think.
Think in terms of environmentalism. If we release tons of cancer-causing agents into the environment, and millions die as a consequence, does that mean doctors don’t exist? After all, doctors are supposed to save lives, and look at all the people dying (even little children). But doctors DO exist! So is it their fault that people die? Is their mere existence supposed to save lives? No, it isn’t.
However, if the doctors told the world to stop producing all those cancer-causing agents, and the world listened, then a major change would happen! But…. what are the odds of this?
Now simply shift that entire argument to the spiritual domain.
What kind of philosophy or theological view is *not* man-made? You may say that a divinely inspired one is. But how do you access a divinely inspired view apart from using human means? We’re humans, not divinities, and no matter how hard you try, any view comes to you and seems right to you because of your human brain. No way around it. So in my view it doesn’t work to say that someone else’s view is simply human and yours is divine.
That’s the point; there are “philosophies” and there is truth. The truth shall set you free, not philosophies or arguments or how good you are with them. If a parent in the kitchen tells his child, ‘don’t touch the hot stove or it will burn you’, it’s not some vain philosophical argument. It’s a truth that brings well-being and health and protection; if the warning is heeded, that is. If the child argues, ‘what ’tis the flame? What ’tis the flesh?’ blah blah blah and proceeds to touch the stove, then suffering occurs. Suffering exists when we reject truths that are meant to protect us. Those truths are what the Bible offers us. Reject it or dismiss it as fables, and you end up with endless man-made philosophies and arguments.
Do you think pleasure can exist without suffering? Some things need a contrast to exist or make any sense. There is no left without right or up without down. If pain and evil didn’t exist, could there by joy and good?
I suppose you could contrast between boring and fun or different degrees of pleasure. And even if suffering must exist to explain pleasure, that wouldn’t explain the degree of suffering that exists in the world. Still, I do think the concept of a world with zero suffering might be impossible even for a perfect/nearly perfect God.
Yes indeed. I might be feeling just fine, nothing wrong with me, and then feel a burst of pleasure. happens all the time. Doesn’t require me to have suffered first — and it certainly doesn’t require other people starving to death (over 200 million just now) for me to feel pleasure.
I’m trying to imagine a world in which good contrasts with lukewarm rather than evil, or pleasure contrasts with the absence of pain/pleasure rather than pain. I suppose it is theoretically possible for an omnipotent God. In my case, I think that if there is a God, that God just isn’t quite what people imagine and probably isn’t fully omnipotent. For me, the notion that suffering has to exist makes sense (not necessarily being related to tectonic plates). It’s hard to see how the laws of nature (developing by chance or at the direction of a creator) would allow otherwise. No doubt though, the degree of suffering in the world is sad.
I enjoyed Heaven and Hell by the way. I especially liked reading about the influence of other ancient civilizations (Babylon, Greece and Rome). Do you think eastern civilizations (e.g. India, China) had any influence at all or where they fully independent? You mentioned Pythagoras proposing the idea of reincarnation. I had assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the ideas existed in Hinduism earlier than that. It’s not hard to imagine the Greeks came up with the idea independently. Or may they have been influenced?
I don’t think there’s much to suggest that the Greeks were heavily influenced by Indian religion and culture, no.
I think that the problem of “natural” evil is even more disquieting when observed in the biological world. Viruses are invisible packets of genetic material that have to infest animals in order to survive and reproduce. As we talk and debate, thousands of our kin, friends, neighbours, and colleagues are being devoured from within by creatures that divine “scripture” of all religions somehow forgot to mention. Why did a loving God create a invisible killer that fells the sinner and saint alike? Note that viruses and microorganisms have been around for ever; long before there were even any primates these pathogens were tormenting herds of deer and prides of lions: mute predators and prey at their mercy. Going back to humans, far too many of the dead were infected at churches, mosques, and synagogues; believers and seekers poisoned at houses of worship by a faceless assassin. What kind of a loving deity betrays his own congregated flock to a miserable and lingering death?
Would not the category of “original sin” explain a lot of bad luck that humans encounter?
Depends how you define and explain original sin. If sin is what causes earthquakes,then I guess so. But that’s a *belief* more than a logical argument, and one that I don’t see any rational basis for.
“Original sin” is a convenient way to explain everything that we see wrong with our world. But demanding that supreme beings conform to our expectations of them is not rational. You seemed smarter when you admitted that any gods who might exist would easily be beyond our ability to understand, which makes atheism a faulty position.
A few thoughts, for what they’re worth:
1. The problem of suffering is a genuine one. Maybe skeptical theists are right in saying that there is an answer, but we’re just too dense to grasp it.
2. Perhaps the problem of suffering can be rendered more tractable by narrowing the focus. Instead of asking, “Why are there natural evils?”, we should ask, “Why do humans need to suffer these evils?”
3. There are 7*10^20 planets in this universe (ZME Science, 11/28/2019), but ours may be the only inhabited one. Nevertheless, there may well be other worlds out there in the multiverse, where intelligent beings aren’t killed by earthquakes and tsunamis. However, our identity as human individuals is tied to the world we live in and the laws and constants that characterize our universe. We can’t wish for a better set of laws without wishing ourselves out of existence.
4. Our world may be a pretty mediocre one, compared to other worlds, but it’s still worth living in, even if it is hideously awful at times. Maybe the world we live in is one of the worst that God could have created, but God made it because it was still worth making, on balance. My2c.
Would you agree that the concept of ‘fairness’ is a human construct? I interpret your view of a God who is omnipotent and loving, who does not also intervene in the world he created to eliminate suffering, as being the ultimate unfairness. As I understand your position, you have chosen your idea of fairness over the concept of an omnipotent God, in the sense that you see those concepts as inextricably linked and mutually necessary.
As a physicist, I know that everything we see around us is the result of matter and energy interacting according to fixed physical laws. That includes earthquakes and floods, drought and crop failure, landslides and mountain building, etc. It also includes diseases and birth defects. They are all just part of the workings of the universe. I suppose those represent the ‘plate tectonics’ theory.
But I also know that we already have the ability to prevent most of the suffering caused by nature, even birth defects (soon), and disease. And we have the ability now to eliminate all suffering caused by humans. Would it not represent fairness for an omnipotent God to give us these tools?
Yes, fairness is a human construct. So is everything else that humans come up with, including the understanding of physics! But I disagree that we have the ability to prevent suffering caused by nature. How are you imagining that we will stop earthquakes and volcanic eruptions or asteroids colliding with the earth?
I am not suggesting that we prevent earthquakes or or volcanic eruptions. Those things are simply part of how the world works. I am suggesting it is in our power to prevent the associated suffering from those things. One can certainly build earthquake resistant structures, and one does not have to live in the shadow of a volcano or in a flood plane or on the edge of the ocean. We can desalinize water and we can make land arable, or we can grow food in other ways. We have it in our power to cure or prevent any disease if that’s how we choose to expend our efforts. I know, that’s the free will argument, but it is true. All I am saying is it is not inherently unfair that we have to live under the conditions that made our existence possible in the first place, especially when we have so much power to eliminate the things that cause suffering. On the other hand, asteroids. You got me there. But I think once every hundred million years or so is not a worry and the suffering will be extremely brief.
We can certainly reduce suffering from natural causes, but we simply can’t remove it. And so the problem remains.
“I disagree that we have the ability to prevent suffering caused by nature.“
Except scientists are working on how to control nature, including when and where it rains. My mother thought it was crazy when she heard we were trying to figure out a way to land on the moon. Did you ever think when you were a child that you would be holding a mini-computer in your hand that allowed you to call, search for information, pay your bills, and talk to someone through a camera in any part of the world?
Someone on here mentioned that scientists have shown how something simple can become, or evolve, into something more complex. That’s true because a fertilized egg becomes a complex human being. What is the most complex thing in the universe? God. Our intelligence evolves to understand the very thing that has been there all along. When someone says they experienced a spontaneous healing and thanks God for it, they’ve experienced that complexity we do not fully understand.
I’ve experienced things that no one can explain, and I don’t feel inclined to share. You insist we can’t perceive God, but that’s only true for you. Others can perceive it.
Dr Ehrman
Suffering can sometimes be a blessing. Suffering is absent in Perfection.
God did not create Adam perfect and God loves those who repent. If we were perfect, we could not sin and would not need to repent. We live in an age of vast information and learn a lot. The problem is, we attribute the knowledge we gain to ourselves, when God clearly stated he taught us what we did not know. God taught Adam and gave him knowledge hence sons of Adam although many very intellectual are not all knowing. Humans label themselves the best of creation mistaken themselves with we’ know it all ‘. God also affirms that there are some matters we can not understand; such as other creations that God created that exalt and praise him in way we do not understand. Jesus said only the Father knows… also said you can not bear what i have to say- can not understand.
Its not whether or not we need to suffer, It is part of our imperfection. Its how we turn it into a blessing.
Dr. Ehrman – excellent points regarding the Problem of Evil.
I’m not the first to suggest that free will is not the same as freedom of action. In other words, a person may have the free will to want to murder people – but that is not the same as allowing the person to have the freedom of *action* to actually murder people. Willing something is not the same as doing it.
I do totally agree with Dr. Ehrman’s thoughts on this. There is something about the all-powerful, all-good, all-just nature of God that I find incompatible. As creatures, men (and women) are obviously very flawed. Would God make such flowed creatures and then hold them responsible for those very flaws that are designed in? This is what I can’t buy about the free-will argument. I agree that I have free will with limitations. If I can’t by nature choose to fly, why can I choose to kill randomly? Why would God set up the rules that way? I’m sorry, but I can’t accept the “God has a reason and purpose for all of this” perspective, either. My reasoning is limited, but I still see suffering as something to be avoided. I will say that I don’t see “natural evil” as such. Illness, earthquakes, etc. are evil only in our perception of their effects. To me they are neither good nor bad in themselves.
I am intrigued by the comment that “Dinesh’s view of God is too small and his view of humans is too large”. Why is it too small? I happen to agree with UCCLMrh’s “grownup god” who acts as a celestial coach, doing His level best to raise us Humans to His level in as short a time as possible. I believe that such a God exists only because scripture provides evidence that He does. So many of the “unexplainable” events of the Bible can be easily understood as contact with a superior being with access to more advanced science and technology than we have.
With regards to the “suffering problem,” I’d like to take a swing at it. Suffering (and awareness of suffering) exists because we have consciousness of SOMETHING BETTER. After God’s commandment of “be fruitful and multiply” isn’t it curious that He never reverses this commandment, when clearly less population would mean less suffering? If human society lacks the infrastructure and/or political will to provide for the needs of all humans, wouldn’t it be better to create fewer humans? Communist China tried this with “one family one child”. If life is inherently good, then suffering must also be.
“…in effect you’re saying that God does not establish the laws of physics, but that the laws of physics determine what God can do. But who created these laws? And how are they more powerful than the all-powerful God?” Exactly. This is the same argument I use when someone suggests that the reason a loving, forgiving God sends people to everlasting Hell for simple disobedience is to uphold Justice. To me that means justice is more powerful than God and He is obligated to defer.
Bart,
You may have faced this question at some point, but I can’t find the answer…
If God created the Universe, then God has some awesome power. The most common denominator amongst definitions of God = all powerful. It is hard to define God because how can we begin to understand what God is capable of or why God does anything? I think you at least partially agree, which is why you retain the designation agnostic.
The Bible clearly depicts suffering both in the Old and the New Testament. In the Bible a God reveals Himself to exist. The God of the Bible does not eliminate all suffering and does not expressly reveal why. According to an earlier post, this unexplainable suffering (both in the Bible and to this day) caused you to abandon your faith in the God revealed in the Bible.
So, if you do not believe in the God revealed in the Bible, do you seek God? Or, because of your atheist designation do you not pursue the existence of any God? Thanks in advance!
I”m open to believing in God, but I have moved away from believing he can exist, and the more I study — not just the Bible, but cosmology, astronomy, evolution of life, and so on — simply confirms me in my views. So I’m not trying to figure out if there is a God anymore, though it anything I think about points me in that direction, I’m completely open to it.
Hi Sir
from theological perspective like the one advocated by Dinesh it in deed raise more question than it answers.
But here is the funny thing concerning free will which I feel to support it
⬇
It may sound extremely complicated, but it is surprisingly easy to test this
idea. Next time a thought pops up in your mind, stop and ask yourself: ‘Why did I
think this particular thought? Did I decide a minute ago to think this thought, and
only then did I think it? Or did it just arise in my mind, without my permission or
instruction? If I am indeed the master of my thoughts and decisions, can I
decide not to think about anything at all for the next 2 minutes?’ Just try, and
see what happens.
Actually, I spend a good time of my meditation period trying to do just that, yes. It takes enormous discipline and self-training.
Sorry Dr. Bart to continue discussion on the same subject regarding the book Lost Christianities.
I followed your advice “Bart April 28, 2020, No. You may want to read the text.”.
I found that I should read in a way that the <> is talking not the human Jesus.
Using expression like “physical likeness” confuses the reader. It can be understood as there was completely different person.
What about Second Treatise of the Great Seth?
“As for me, on the one hand they saw me; they punished me. Another, their father, was the one who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They were hitting me with the reed; another was the one who lifted up the cross on his shoulder, who was <>>. Another was the one on whom they put the crown of thorns.”
I understand from the text that It was Simon whom was crucified instead of Jesus. Is it ?
Regards
No, I don’t think so. That *is* the view reported by Irenaeus of Basilides, but in the Second Treatise of the Great Seth all it says of Simon is that he carried the cross. The one who is crucified is the physical being in whom the true divine Christ dwelt temporarily. See 51.15-16. And make sure you read the whole passage in context (that is, read the whole book); I’d suggest taking a look at the introduction in Marvin Meyer’s translation in The Nag Hammadi Scriptures.
Suffering might be viewed as God’s unavoidable collateral damage or friendly fire.
How about the “God may be superior to humans but just not ‘that’ superior” idea?” Plus, our sheer numbers have likely removed us from his/her/its safety bubble. Maybe when the population past the million mark, we were on our own? Of course this runs contrary to an omnipotent God. Some levity here, sure, but aren’t you simply narrowing down god’s personality/powers too finely, where your disbelief in god is contingent on him/her/it being defined by Judeo-Christian limitations, i.e., no room for faults or weakness? Wasn’t jealousy a bruise on his/her/its perfection?
One can certainly make up one’s own definitions of God and then claim that that one exists, but I’ve never seen much utility in that either! My main issue is whether there is a divine power in control of the world, and our destiny, or not. If there are other divinities out there without much control, well, good on ’em! 🙂
Dr Bart ..
Do you believe that the Problem of Evil and Suffering is an Argument against God’s existence or just and Argument against God’s Caracter ?
Depends what you mean by “God.”
Dr Bart ..
I mean by it, A UniPersonal, Intelligent , Supernatural Being, All Wise , Creator .
Sorry — I do not have your original question, so you need to ask it again with your explanation; otherwise my answer won’t make sense to other readers since they won’t know what i”m answering.
No worries, Dr Bart ..The question was :
Do you believe that the Problem of Evil and Suffering is an Argument against God’s existence or just and Argument against God’s Caracter ?
Then You answered me back by
Depends what you mean by “God.”
Then I replied by
Dr Bart ..
I mean by it, A UniPersonal, Intelligent , Supernatural Being, All Wise , Creator.
If you mean that he is all knowing and all loving, yes then it’s an argument against his existence. If he’s not that, then I’m not sure in what sense he is “God”
Ok Dr Bart ..
So Would you discard and dismantle totally the notion of The Prime Mover and the Kalam Cosmological Argument by The Argument of The Problem of Evil ?
Yes. I don’t know what the Kalam Cosmological Argument is, but the idea of a Prime Mover and the stnadard Cosmological argument are not at all persuasive to me.
The earth has many living things that don’t suffer. They are known as animals. Only humans suffer. This is because humans are conscious. Animals feel pain but they have no self who judges the pain and suffers from it. The human consciousness compares the state of pain with no pain and judges it to be bad and this is suffering. Without consciousness, humans would not suffer. Notice there is no suffering when sedated. It is not normally possible to be aware of the pain without suffering from it. If you want consciousness, you have to suffer.
I think a lot of people will disagree with you on this. Consciousness is quite different among various species, but we too are animals. And it is very easy to detect teh suffering in an animal in pain….
Let’s not argue about the meaning of consciousness. That’s a dead end. What I mean is that one animal (human) has a little human in their brain that talks to itself all the time. No other animal has that. This really distinguishes humans. It enables them to do lots of things. It also is what is happy and what is sad; it also is what suffers. Suffering would not exist without that little human in the brain, but neither would a lot else (like happiness).
We could imagine a situation where only good happens to the little human (heaven) but heaven is hard to model. I agree with you wife, it would be hell. So if we want the little human, we suffer. God might have known this. He might have known he could have eliminated all suffering by making human just like other animals. He apparently chose the little person. Are we glad he did? Can he be benevolent and do this? Humans and animals incur tsunamis and earthquakes. Only the little human suffers.
I agree with the little human idea, more or less. And my beloved Nina (jet black “golden” doodle) has a little dog. She’s not on my level when it comes to consciousness, but she has desires, inclinations, likes, dislikes, memory, feelings, and a very keen aversion to pain! (Just try grooming her face sometime, and she’ll let you know!) 🙂
Animals feel pain. Pain is good and necessary. We all need it. We react to pain by adjusting behavior.
But suffering is not about feeling pain. Suffering is an attitude which is manifested in the mind only (the little human). Pain can be judged as suffering, or it can be judged as what it is: pain.
Consider Diogenes. If someone were forced to live like him, you would add them to your list of blog charity cases and use them as proof that God is not benevolent. Diogenes would tell you to go f*** yourself. He knows more about suffering than you or I. He knows it is an illusion.