kctan

You need to read some eastern literature my friend.

Not needed. Courage in all but one exhibiting more. All are self sacrificing but one sacrificed him/herself first. Virtue doesn't need the existence of suffering to be in existence, one only need know how to recognise a virtue.

long winded fool

How would one recognize a virtue if there were no 'not-ok' feelings?

Jamie_L

I don't see this. We know there are cures for diseases. Thousands of years ago, people suffered more from disease than they do today. Do humans have less free will today than they did back then? We have drugs that can relieve mental illness - allowing people more free will than they otherwise would.

It seems obvious to me that suffering and free will are not linked in a one-to-one relationship.

Well, this gets into a different discussion, but I'm had apologists flatly state that Free Will necessarily results in evil. If it doesn't, then Free Will stops being a good arguement against the Problem of Evil. If Free Will does not have to lead to evil, then suffering isn't a logical necessity for Free Will, and then we're back to my original complaint that we don't need suffering to have the virtue of love.

Yes and no. If you get stabbed in the gut, you are going to suffer. No, I suppose if you could ignore the pain, or had some pain killers, then you could achieve a "state of mind" that resulted in you not "suffering" from the wound. But you've still been stabbed in the gut. Cancer is not a state of mind. Earthquakes are not a state of mind. When we talk about the conscious reaction to things that damage us (physically and emotionally), we are really talking about a different definition of the word "suffering".

Jamie

long winded fool

I agree with this. It's not that the more one suffers, the more free will they'll have. Since it is possible to freely choose to eliminate suffering, suffering is not absolutely necessary for free will. Since the ability to choose something that is not ok is necessary for free will, suffering, or evil, or the state of being not-ok cannot be eliminated except through the free choice of all things which have free will. If suffering is man's choice (as is the case according to Genesis) then God is incapable of eliminating it without eliminating this freedom, correct? And what alternative could there be without some feeling of suffering? Everyone could be 100% loving and perfect and suffering could theoretically be eliminated, but if this were a divine decree since the beginning, how could one argue that anyone would have free will?

We can have free will without suffering, but the free will has to exist before the absence of suffering. Introducing a man into a world where suffering is already impossible is preventing a man from having any freedom of choice. (All actions must lead to A, when free will is the ability to choose A or B.) Becoming a man who has conquered previously existing suffering is attaining free will without suffering. In all cases, the ability to suffer must be present for free will to have meaning. If God prevents anyone from having the ability to suffer, he necessarily undermines free will. Sure he could simply prevent really horrible things, but this is a slippery slope. "Really horrible" is dependent upon value judgement, which requires a basis for comparison. Spilling ice cream would be "really horrible" in the absence of any possibility of worse suffering, and God would have to prevent that as well to be free from the PoE. And on back into "Why can't god just make me love him?"

That's right. We need only be able to suffer. This solves the problem because humans don't need to suffer, yet God cannot arbitrarily eliminate the suffering which already exists either. The possibility of choosing evil is what is necessary for free will. Everyone could choose to be good and evil would be eliminated without presenting a contradiction. God cannot decree that everyone will always be good, (also eliminating evil,) because this necessarily eliminates free will which contradicts the all-loving premise. Remember, god can't just get rid of the worst things because whatever is left over will become the worst things and you necessarily slide all the way back to the inability to reject God and the subsequent contradiction of omnibenevolence.

Isn't this airtight?

Bree

It is so interesting to me that, in order to value virtue, we must have some idea what virtue is. So, without vice we would not have a yardstick with which to measure virtue. It also seems that virtue becomes even more laudable when the level of vice rises and (supposedly) temptation is higher than ever.

So what is vice, and what is virtue?

Jamie_L

Actually, I don't think it is, but somehow we seem to have slipped dead into the middle of a Free Will(TM) discussion, which wasn't really where I was headed with the OP.

In many arguements, I've seen "the importance of developing virtue" extolled as a goal of God independent of free will. That is, creating virtue is a "greater good" that God seeks, and suffering is a means to produce those virtues. Put another way, part of God's "mysterious plan" that requires bad things to happen to good people is to develop virtue in mankind.

Part and parcel to these arguements is that the virtue is more important than the absence of suffering. In other words: It's better to have a world where people need courage than it is to have a world with dramatically less suffering, but where courage isn't important. I think that's just not only silly, but if put in everyday terms, it's something that would horrify people. No one wants more war so that people have an opportunity to develop bravery. Well, most civilized people don't want that.

I can't fathom an omnibenevolent God wanting that.

Jamie

long winded fool

Me either. I'd say you have a good reason why the argument, "if there is a God, then bad things need to happen to good people for virtue to be actualized," must necessarily contradict the omnibenevolent Christian God. I don't think the fact that bad things happen to good people actually contradicts this god, but if the reason given for suffering is for people to be virtuous, then whomever has made this argument, (presumably a christian,) has presented a belief which contradicts the nature of the god of the bible. So, "developing virtue" is not the ultimate good, because developing virtue is synonymous with "ceasing to be evil." Ceasing to be evil is good, but never having chosen evil in the first place is better. Developing virtue is a means, not an end.

To avoid being even more long winded, I'll just agree. Developing virtue is not the purpose of suffering in the Christian faith, though some may mistakenly think this. If it were, then there would be a contradiction. Since I like to argue against the best argument of my opponent, I always assume the best argument and go from there. While many christians do use the unsound argument you presented, there is a better one for the coexistence of suffering and divine omnibenevolence. The argument you outlined in the op does present a contradiction, but this is a problem only for this particular argument, not for the christian philosophy of God.

kctan

That's where our thoughts differ. Why must there be an 'not-ok' feeling before you can recognise a virtue ?

You have courage, I've courage, if I showed more courage (as define by our society) would you recognise that I've a virtue of being courageous ? Where's the need of an 'not-ok' feeling ?

It all boils down to just how 'virtue' is being seen & recognised. Just like 'suffering'.

kctan

I would be in pain but I won't be 'suffering' because of the pain. Likewise for cancer & earthquakes. Physical harm is done, emotional harm depends on just how strong mentally you're.

Suffering conveys more towards the emotional part of an event then the physical part of one when used in context of recognising a virtue if I may say so, so my saying that 'suffering' in this case, is more atune to the state of one's mind is quite appropriate IMHO.

Below is the meaning for 'suffer' provided by Merriam-Webster Online.

1 a : to submit to or be forced to endure <suffer martyrdom> b : to feel keenly : labor under <suffer thirst>
2 : UNDERGO, EXPERIENCE
3 : to put up with especially as inevitable or unavoidable
4 : to allow especially by reason of indifference <the eagle suffers little birds to sing -- Shakespeare>

intransitive senses
1 : to endure death, pain, or distress
2 : to sustain loss or damage
3 : to be subject to disability or handicap

The physical damage may be there but how you want it to affect you depends entirely on yourself. That's where the essence of 'suffering' lies. When I received a stab to the gut I may or may not suffer. It all depends on how well I can receive (endure) pain.

BTW IIRC the ability to endure physical or emotional pain is just another virtue.

long winded fool

I guess what I'm asking is: How can courage exist if courage is a reasoned control of personal fear and if suffering is a prerequisite for fear? Isn't suffering then a logical prerequisite for courage? (Can fear exist without a not-ok feeling?) And what about mercy? Can you have the virtue of mercy without the existence of suffering?