Sin, Pain, and Suffering

"We were made to suffer, it's our lot in life" - C3PO, Star Wars
"Life is pain, highness, and anyone who says differently is selling something?" - Westley, Princess Bride

Most Christians I've met tend to give sin as the explanation for pain, thereby implying that it is a choice. However, it is quite possible to be hurt by the sins of others, and there is no personal choice involved in that. Furthermore, they are forgetting the doctrine of original sin, which says that although individual sins may be the results of free choice, a sinful human nature is not (except perhaps for Adam and Eve). I tend to see evidence of original sin everywhere - I do not deny it's existence - but I've yet to comprehend it's fairness, or even it's purpose?

There may be ways to avoid some pains in this life (and I am all for such endeavors), but ultimately I do not believe that pain is a choice. We do not have a choice about being born with a sin nature, and for that matter, we do not have a choice about being born either. Most Christians would even say that suicide is further sin - so, we're born as sinful creature in a fallen world, and we have no way out! You must sin, and you must suffer! As I said, there seems to be alot of supporting evidence for original sin, in that nothing in this world is perfect; everything is somehow broken and less than it could be, or perverted or otherwise not good. Yet despite believing in the reality of original sin, I still hold out for an eventual bliss. The best I have ever been able to describe this bliss was in a discussion of The Count of Monte Cristo. Someone had said that they saw the book only as a fun story, not as something of any philosophical value which could be analysed. I countered with what I thought some of the philosophical lessons were:

2. [there were a total of 5 points] There is no such thing as pleasure or pain, only the comparison of the two. You cannot fully appreciate either in the absence of the other.

Now, having stated those, I must say that I disagree with number two. What I am about to say may not apply equally to all people, but in most cases I do believe that innocent bliss can be appreciated within itself. Pain hurts, and often even after the tragedy is passed the pain can remain, marring what might otherwise have been a happy resolution. If pain reoccurs too many times, or occurs without any apparent reason, or for reasons beyond one's control, it will lead to an insecurity that will never allow happiness to be fully enjoyed ever again. The doubt will always remain that happiness can be taken away at any moment, for any reason, or for no reason at all... my two cents ;)

...so, in other words, I reject what I call the "Yin-Yang Hypothesis," that is, pain is necessary for the appreciation of pleasure. I believe in pleasure as a self-contained positive good, which is great enough not to be dependent on pain (Likewise, I believe in Good as something which is greater than, and not dependent on, Evil). However, this leaves me viewing pain and suffering (and therefore much of life itself), as completely unnecessary. Certainly I have seen individual cases where someone chooses to commit a particular sin, and later they suffer the consequences. If the sin had not been committed, the consequences would not have been necessary, and I cannot believe that the particular sin was necessary, so how can the consequences be thought of as ultimately necessary? On a much larger scale, I do not see why sin nature should be necessary, and so also I cannot see the endless resulting pain and suffering as necessary either. Furthermore, in my opinion, purposeless, unnecessary suffering is the worst kind of all. It reminds me of a quote from Atlas Shrugged (which I recently included in another blog on Irony and Paradox):

“Like that dog she heard about, she thought…somebody’s dog in somebody’s laboratory…the dog who got his signals switched on him and saw no way to tell satisfaction from torture, saw food change to beatings and beatings change to food, saw his eyes and ears deceiving him and his judgment futile and his consciousness impotent in a shifting, swimming, shapeless world, and gave up, refusing to eat at that price or to live in a world of that kind."

Purposeful suffering may accomplish something great or at least teach a lesson, but purposeless suffering is cruel and destroys reason. What lesson could the dog possibly learn from inescapable random torture? What lessons can humans learn when pain is likewise inescapable? It is this very problem, I think, which drives many to atheism. I am reminded of a dialogue which I can't quite remember and can't seem to place, but it goes something like this:

Woman: Do you believe there is a God?
Man: I feel that there must be, and this makes me angry.
Woman: Why?
Man: Because I feel pain, and if there is a God then He created this pain.

If you reject the "Yin-Yang Hypothesis," you can feel angry at God, or you can choose atheism and accept that random pain exists because the world is random. Or, you can try to suspend judgment, as I do, and simply wait for better information to come along. Specifically, I am very reluctant to choose atheism. That choice would seem to ease the pain, since pain would then be seen as a mere accident; but, it also means that pain very likely will never subside. The "Yin-Yang Hypothesis" also suggests that pain will never subside (unless pleasure also subsides). Perhaps I am naive, but I'm still stubbornly holding out for all imaginable perfections, non-random answers, and persistent pleasures.

Just for the record, I'd like to add that I do not feel that my life has been particularly painful. That is to say, I haven't had to endure many actual tortures or deprivations. My pains tend to come in the form of desiring things which I cannot have. Sometimes I desire a perfected version of what I already have (fully knowing that true perfection is impossible), sometimes I desire things which I could only have now if my past had been different (and time travel, as far as I can tell, is impossible), sometimes I desire things which are logically impossible (ie having your cake and eating it too), etc. Why would God create me to want so many things which I cannot have?

Eastern mystics tend to believe that the cessation of desire is the way to happiness - but what is wrong with real desires, why should they be so impossible? For example, I like chocolate. Eating a bit of real chocolate makes me happy for a few moments; why does that have to be thrown away? Maybe I had to work to get the chocolate, but in the end I'm still happy to have it despite whatever small cost was involved. If I would then desire the chocolate to be incapable of making me gain weight or to be without other adverse side effects, why is that off-limits? Why am I supposed to be happiest of all when I don't even want chocolate? I think desires are wonderful - sometimes they take alot of time and work to attain, but I don't see a desireless world as something very appealing. I can't! I'm ok with learning patience and a work-ethic as long as the reward really is waiting there for me at the end. But, I'd hate to think that I was the dupe, and exhausted all my time and efforts for nothing, or for something less than what was promised - which is what often seems to happen in life.

Charity-minded individuals would probably say something like "Think of all the poor starving orphans in Africa who have nothing. You should be happy!" But, seriously, how is that supposed to make me happy? Now, on top of not getting what I want, I'm supposed to feel "lucky" knowing that I'm already ahead of 98% of the pack. Perhaps I am supposed to fell guilty, too, for their being behind. Even if I do not feel guilt, I still feel pity, and it doesn't make the world seem any closer to the place that anyone wanted it to be.

I am vaguely reminded of this song: