Suffering

Akrasia

I was taking a walk outside today and I couldn't stop thinking about the way the nuns treated the women and the children under their care and I kept getting drawn back to the word 'Suffering'

I was trying to think if there is any scenario in which suffering is desirable or something that ought to be brought about rather than avoided.

The only reason i could think of why it might be good for someone to experience suffering for themselves is so that they might be able to empathise with the suffering of others, and even here, the ultimate aim is to experience suffering so that we can ultimately relieve the suffering of others.

All other cases of suffering are either gratuitous, where there is no purpose and it's just suffering and misery for no good end, often due to misfortune or poverty or illness, or suffering is something that one has to go through in order to achieve something that is very difficult but worthwhile.

In both of the cases above, if that suffering could be avoided, then it should be, the suffering has no positive element, it is best avoided if possible.

I was thinking about the reasons why people feel pain. Pain is a biological reaction which has only one purpose. We are supposed to avoid it. Pain is a message sent by our nervous system that what we are doing is damaging and we should stop doing it in case we cause an injury. Other forms of pain and suffering can act as disincentives. We experience social anxiety if we are shunned or excluded by society. This acts as an incentive for us to act in a way so as to reduce the risk of suffering this kind of anxiety.

Now, enter christianity. One of the central elements of christian theology is that 'suffering' can 'atone for sin'. The entire festival of Easter, the holiest festival in the christian calender 'celebrates' how Jesus 'suffered for our sins' The suffering was not just something he had to go through in the process of sacrificing his life for us as an act of love, no, the suffering was probably the main central purpose of the crucifixion.

In christianity suffering is good. If you deny yourself and put yourself through hardships, and sacrifice and suffer then this makes you a better person (there are no 'good people' because we're all sinners and must be punished')

This is the mindset behind the nuns and priests and bishops and behind all the politicians and lay people who sent these women and children away to wash away their sins.

All the reports from the homes where the children were denied any joy, where toys were taken from them and they were kept away from other children and kept hungry and cold only make sense in the context that the nuns wanted the children to suffer. They wanted this because they thought suffering would do them good.

Aside from a few monsters in these institutions, most of the nuns probably had good intentions and probably felt they were doing their best under difficult circumstances. Hannah Arendt's 'Banality of evil' philosophy backs this up. The worst horrors take place by ordinary people simply following conventions and doing what they are told without challenging authority. The evil in this case is the dogma and the teachings of the RC church and the doctrines of suffering and atonement and sin

Cabaal

Basically thats it,

suffering brought you closer to god, things that felt good and brought joy (sex, relationships, having children etc are dirty and sinful)

Thats what the nuns thought and thats what Mother Terresa thought, its was inbred into the faith

robindch

Akrasia wrote: »

In christianity suffering is good. If you deny yourself and put yourself through hardships, and sacrifice and suffer then this makes you a better person (there are no 'good people' because we're all sinners and must be punished')

Suffering isn't exactly believed to make you a better person.

Instead, suffering is something that a good catholic should "accept" -- turn the other cheek and all that -- and then "offer up" this pain in the expectation that the deity will then reduce some other appropriate cosmic deficit by a proportionate amount.

eg, one could offer up some suffering for the conversion of Russia or China.

It's basically equivalent to praying, save that it hurts more.

The idea that suffering should be accepted is quite a useful one - keeps people docile beneath some authoritarian boot.

Akrasia

There are still plenty of people out there who think 'suffering and hardship build character'

I think there is more than enough evidence to show that some people who have a very strong character can survive a lot of suffering and hardship, while others can have their confidence and mental health utterly destroyed.

smacl

Akrasia wrote: »

There are still plenty of people out there who think 'suffering and hardship build character'

I think there is more than enough evidence to show that some people who have a very strong character can survive a lot of suffering and hardship, while others can have their confidence and mental health utterly destroyed.

I think it may be too easy to excuse certain forms of torture as suffering, i.e. making others suffer as opposed to choosing to suffer yourself. For example, any sports person or athlete is going to suffer to achieve their goals, but this is a personal choice and can be applauded. Making someone else suffer or telling them they should suffer, because they've done something unacceptable to you, is a form of punishment. If it is undeserved punishment it equates to anything from bullying to torture. To my mind, most suffering resulting from religious belief falls into this category.

jobeenfitz

I was reared in Ireland in the sixties and I can assure you many children suffered in their own homes. Much of what I seen and suffered was down to alcohol abuse, ignorance and of course the catholic church.

I do have some sympathy for some of the nuns in these institutions as many of these would have been from a rural background with little education.
I am guessing many of the nuns were carrying out orders out of fear. We could have expected a bit more enlightened behaviour from the more educated amongst the nuns but then again fear should not be underestimated.

I don't believe in religion any more, not because of the powerful and sometimes evil church leaders in Ireland and the suffering they caused, just cos its far fetched.

The Government of the early Free State were cowards and complicit in all this suffering.

Like I said I was never in a home but I suffered my own hell at home at the hands of a violent drunk dictator.

Ireland inside institutions and sometimes in our own homes was a very bleak place in the past.

As for the present, I can't really say but I would bet life for many children is still hell in this great country of ours.

Akrasia

The great thing about secular morality is that one of the most obvious and universal aims is to reduce suffering. No child should have to live with domestic violence. No wife should have to stay with an abusive husband. Catholic morality said that once married that's it, there's no way out. If you're married into an abusive relationship, you'd better suck it up and your kids better get used to it.

We'll never live in a perfect world, but any world which sees suffering as a problem to be solved and not 'a cross to bear' is bound to be more compassionate and more likely to help those who need help the most.

Bellatori

Mother Teresa of Calcutta, that doyen of the RCC, Nobel laureate believed that suffering brought you nearer to god which is why she would not give drugs to terminally ill patients at her hospice and left them to 'suffer' without medication or family support. Lovely woman - a saint now I believe.

Akrasia

It's horrible, yet when the priest saw my S&M dungeon, somehow I was the one who was the pervert.

wretcheddomain

Suffering is beneficial from the perspective of Mother Nature - after all, without inducing suffering and death there could be no future life. So you could argue suffering is desirable on this scale but methinks you're referring to non-natural gratuitous human suffering which is only beneficial for the knowledge of its consequences and the application thereafter to prevent it. Religion contorts this rational view by assuming gratuitous suffering is a necessary part of the human experience, and there I draw a line.

keane2097

Bellatori wrote: »

Mother Teresa of Calcutta, that doyen of the RCC, Nobel laureate believed that suffering brought you nearer to god which is why she would not give drugs to terminally ill patients at her hospice and left them to 'suffer' without medication or family support. Lovely woman - a saint now I believe.

Of course when she was sick herself it was a different story.

nozzferrahhtoo

I think I am somewhat in the Sam Harris camp where I think a controlled exploration of the human condition is only going to end up being a good thing. And as such a personal exploration of suffering is not something I would write off as quickly as many.

But "suffering" is too wide a blanket term to give a coherent answer to. For example brain scans have shown very clearly that ostracization or isolation stimulate the same parts of the brain as actual pain. Which is why "shunning" in some Christian sects has genuinely been compared to torture. And even INSIDE PRISON "isolation" is considered a torture because most human beings would prefer the company of rapists and murderers to no company at all.

Yet people self inflict such isolation in the form of solitude and contemplation on themselves over long periods of time and come out of such experiences espousing all kinds of love and morality and more that simply can not be ignored in such quantities without being critically evaluated with scepticism attached.

So I fall in the middle of several camps. I am happy to acknowledge that suffering in general is to be avoided under a social and general morality. But the consensual and controlled exploration of human suffering might at the same time has much to offer us.

Hotblack Desiato

I don't believe it has a damn thing to offer us tbh.

lazybones32

Pain/suffering/hardship are all part of life.
Some force us to grow (birth, teething, growing pains, heartbreak, loss of a loved one, a really big poo) and some can destroy a person.
Stoicism doesn't place high value on unmerited suffering but views it as potential for further improvement, refinement and personal growth. I think some Roman Emperors used send their Sons to the furthest outposts of the Empire, so that they would grow strong by having to endure hardship and not be spoiled by the privilege of being a deity/royalty. Hardship reveals character in a way that an easy life cannot. It serves to show a person what they're made of but this mindset has obvious failings.

Judaism takes a different view of unmerited suffering. According to them, any suffering was direct intervention by God to punish a person for their sin or the sin of their parents or ancestors. To them, health, wealth, a large family were signs that God was pleased with them and blessed them with these things. Likewise, if a person was poor, ill or barren, it was a Judgement of God on them. They understood every occurrence to be a divine judgement...like no rain falling as a direct and immediate punishment.

Stoicism and Judaism predate Christianity but have influenced it.
Christian Teaching is quite clear on the subject of suffering but Christian focus has sometimes become blurred and reverted to other ideas. Christ healed and alleviated suffering and commanded His disciples to do the same; which they did and still do. (Whether people believe the testimony of those who claim to have received supernatural healing is not the focus of my post, so no point in taking issue) Monasteries are still bound by a Rule of Hospitality and care for the sick has been a central aspect and practice of Religious Orders.
Suffering is not good in Christianity. Completely false. Suffering can have merit - provided your suffering isn't caused by Justice - and can help develop certain characteristics and attributes that wouldn't be refined by any other method.
The disposition of the 'heart' is what makes the person 'good' in the eyes of God, not their suffering. If a person can alleviate their suffering, they are supposed to. I agree when you say there was too much focus on the sinful aspect of humanity and I've no doubt this has caused a lot of 'issues' in people (it basically caused the Reformation and subsequent trouble, due to M Luther's scruples).

What caused the Nuns to act so harsh?
It could be a mix of things...maybe they were forced into the Nuns and didn't want to be there, dealing with people they wouldn't look at if they weren't nuns? maybe they were bitches? maybe corporal punishment was seen as a remedy for perceived character inadequacies? maybe they took unto themselves the power to judge those who they were supposed to serve?...I often got beat because "it's for your own good" but I have yet to discern what good exactly came of it.
Whatever caused some nuns to act like they did can be traced back to their own personality and not their creed. Some folk use religion to justify their actions and others just do it.

Hotblack Desiato

lazybones32 wrote: »

What caused the Nuns to act so harsh?

They were willing to subjugate their better judgement and their humanity to an unquestionable authority.

Akrasia

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Suffering is beneficial from the perspective of Mother Nature - after all, without inducing suffering and death there could be no future life. So you could argue suffering is desirable on this scale but methinks you're referring to non-natural gratuitous human suffering which is only beneficial for the knowledge of its consequences and the application thereafter to prevent it. Religion contorts this rational view by assuming gratuitous suffering is a necessary part of the human experience, and there I draw a line.

Death is necessary and suffering is part of life, but suffering is always something best avoided in pretty much every conceivable scenario except in the religious context when suffering is a 'good' in and of itself.

mezuzaj

Akrasia wrote: »

Now, enter christianity. One of the central elements of christian theology is that 'suffering' can 'atone for sin'.

Central?? Where does it say that?

Akrasia

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think I am somewhat in the Sam Harris camp where I think a controlled exploration of the human condition is only going to end up being a good thing. And as such a personal exploration of suffering is not something I would write off as quickly as many.

But "suffering" is too wide a blanket term to give a coherent answer to. For example brain scans have shown very clearly that ostracization or isolation stimulate the same parts of the brain as actual pain. Which is why "shunning" in some Christian sects has genuinely been compared to torture. And even INSIDE PRISON "isolation" is considered a torture because most human beings would prefer the company of rapists and murderers to no company at all.

Yet people self inflict such isolation in the form of solitude and contemplation on themselves over long periods of time and come out of such experiences espousing all kinds of love and morality and more that simply can not be ignored in such quantities without being critically evaluated with scepticism attached.

So I fall in the middle of several camps. I am happy to acknowledge that suffering in general is to be avoided under a social and general morality. But the consensual and controlled exploration of human suffering might at the same time has much to offer us.

In this case, suffering is a means to an end, just as an endurance athlete will put him/herself through extreme hardship in order to accomplish a very difficult challenge, the suffering is not the end, it is the barrier to be overcome.

In religion, suffering is sometimes seen as a worthwhile goal. The experience of suffering, either physical or social or psychological is venerated. The ludicrous idea of stigmata, that god would give someone weeping sores as a 'gift' is a reflection of a central theme of christianity is that suffering pays for sin, and sin is unavoidable because all humans are sinners regardless of what we do. Therefore we should sacrifice and do penance and deny ourselves pleasures and accept pain.

mezuzaj

Akrasia wrote: »

In this case, suffering is a means to an end, just as an endurance athlete will put him/herself through extreme hardship in order to accomplish a very difficult challenge, the suffering is not the end, it is the barrier to be overcome.

In religion, suffering is sometimes seen as a worthwhile goal. The experience of suffering, either physical or social or psychological is venerated. The ludicrous idea of stigmata, that god would give someone weeping sores as a 'gift' is a reflection of a central theme of christianity is that suffering pays for sin, and sin is unavoidable because all humans are sinners regardless of what we do. Therefore we should sacrifice and do penance and deny ourselves pleasures and accept pain.

suffering pays for sin? Where does it say that?

Akrasia

mezuzaj wrote: »

Central?? Where does it say that?

Jesus christ suffered for our sins.

I was only told that a gazillion times growing up.

mezuzaj

Akrasia wrote: »

Jesus christ suffered for our sins.

I was only told that a gazillion times growing up.

? Confused here. You said suffering is central to Christianity and it pays for our sins. Where does it say that?

Akrasia

mezuzaj wrote: »

suffering pays for sin? Where does it say that?

It's the doctrine of atonement

Are you taking the piss?

mezuzaj

Akrasia wrote: »

It's the doctrine of atonement

Are you taking the piss?

Atoning for sins and suffering for Sins are two very different things. Christ died and suffered on the Cross, but did not call for his followers to be Crucified. You don't have to suffer to be saved. Its not a central requirement for a Christian to suffer to be saved.

Pain and suffering are part of life, rich/poor sooner or later we face it. Some Christians draw spiritual strength and use it to grow closer to Christ. They find meaning in suffering. But they don't look for it.

There are some Christians who actively look to mortify themselves ... But that is not a central part of Christianity, Christians are not required to suffer to be saved.

Akrasia

Christianity is entirely based on the story that god sent himself to earth as a human to be tortured and killed in order to pay for the sins of mankind.

It's a ludicrous idea that two wrongs could make a right, that torturing anyone could somehow make up for other wrongs that have been done in the past, but I don't make up the rules, this is what christians believe.

Suffering somehow 'cleanses' the soul. It's also the whole point behind limbo and purgatory. ( I know that these aren't talked about so much any more, but they've been part of the stick christianity has been beating us with for a thousand years and these ideas were very ingrained in the nuns and priests who were responsible for so much of the sh1t the RCC was responsible for in Ireland.

Akrasia

mezuzaj wrote: »

Atoning for sins and suffering for Sins are two very different things. Christ died and suffered on the Cross, but did not call for his followers to be Crucified. You don't have to suffer to be saved. Its not a central requirement for a Christian to suffer to be saved.

Pain and suffering are part of life, rich/poor sooner or later we face it. Some Christians draw spiritual strength and use it to grow closer to Christ. They find meaning in suffering. But they don't look for it.

There are some Christians who actively look to mortify themselves ... But that is not a central part of Christianity, Christians are not required to suffer to be saved.

That's your opinion, it is not shared by the nuns who inflicted hell on the 'fallen women' in the mother and child homes. These orders were very much about hardship and suffering and self denial.

robindch

mezuzaj wrote: »

suffering is central to Christianity and it pays for our sins. Where does it say that?

It's in the gospels and the various letters that follow them.

These tracts are contained in a book that's usually called "the bible".

mezuzaj

robindch wrote: »

It's in the gospels and the various letters that follow them.

These tracts are contained in a book that's usually called "the bible".

So it says in the Gospels that unless we suffer we won't be saved? That its a requirement to suffer to be saved?

So a child that dies at Birth, who is baptised is not saved?

robindch

mezuzaj wrote: »

So it says in the Gospels that unless we suffer we won't be saved? That its a requirement to suffer to be saved?

Uh, no. You're shifting the goalposts.

First you seemed unaware that "suffering is central to Christianity and it pays for our sins" - as above, that's actually the case and as Akrasia points out, that's called "The Doctrine of Atonement" in catholic terminology - you can find out more on this here. Most christian variants have similar beliefs.

Now, you're asking -- according to christian mythology anyway -- whether an individual believer needs to "suffer" in order to stay alive when he/she dies. Nope, that's not the case, at least so far as I'm aware anyway, though as I pointed out above, in catholicism, an individual believer can deliver his or her own "suffering" into the hands of the deity to offset the derivative evil from some badness elsewhere, or to request that some good take place.

nozzferrahhtoo

Akrasia wrote: »

In this case, suffering is a means to an end, just as an endurance athlete will put him/herself through extreme hardship in order to accomplish a very difficult challenge, the suffering is not the end, it is the barrier to be overcome.

In a sense yes, sure. But I also see it is as possibly an end in itself too. An area of inquiry worth exploring in certain contexts. I think though there is significant overlap between what I am saying, and what you are. It would he hard to pick it apart without too many pedantry on my part.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In a sense yes, sure. But I also see it is as possibly an end in itself too. An area of inquiry worth exploring in certain contexts. I think though there is significant overlap between what I am saying, and what you are. It would he hard to pick it apart without too many pedantry on my part.

I think certain forms of self imposed suffering, whether it is the endurance athlete, the polar explorer, or the meditative recluse in self imposed solitude, come down to exploration of personal limits and can be beneficial as such. My feeling is that if you don't do this on occasion you can miss out on achieving your potential, and as a result be plagued with notions of 'what if...' and 'if only...' in later life. In your dotage, will you look back in fondness to the times you were most comfortable, or the times you went through hell to achieve your goals?

pauldla

smacl wrote: »

...

In your dotage, will you look back in fondness to the times you were most comfortable, or the times you went through hell to achieve your goals?

Or, like George Carlin, will you think 'I should have f*cked old whats-her-name'.

recedite

The concepts behind atonement and sacrifice go back a long way, to pre-christian times, maybe even to pre-human times.

Primitive European peoples learned to save some captive livestock as food for the winter. If they sacrificed these at the right times for food they could survive the winter. After a while, they associated certain times of the year such as the winter solstice (yule, christmas, mid-winter whatever) and spring/easter/the end-of-winter with festivals. The act of sacrificing the animal took on a ritual, and a religious meaning. It seemed as if the animal was sacrificing itself so that the people could live.
If the food supply was almost gone, there might also be some logic if some weaker humans volunteered to be sacrificed, just to ensure that a few stronger ones survived on the remaining rations. If they failed to volunteer, maybe some religious ritual helped the survivors to feel a bit better about dispatching them.

The big mistake was in going from this to believing that the sacrifice was in itself "a good thing". As opposed to being a means to an end. And this idea developed as religion developed.
A couple of examples; Aztecs captured and killed people from other tribes as sacrifices to appease their gods. Incas sacrificed virgin girls (no doubt a category of person decided on by old men) Vikings sometimes volunteered themselves for sacrifice. Bog bodies are found all over Europe, nobody knows why they were sacrificed or whether they volunteered, but it was done in a ritualistic way. In the Roman invasion of Britain, it was recorded that as the celts/britons were defeated and the tribes retreated westwards towards Wales, the desperate survivors resorted to sacrificing themselves in a bid to reverse the military defeats. Which only made things easier for the Romans.
What all these later post-famine examples have in common is that the sacrifice has no actual effect, or it makes things worse.

In most primitive societies human sacrifice was only ever called upon in desperate times, if at all. But the idea persisted that a smaller amount of sacrifice or suffering could make an equivalent amount of "good" happen.

So if you look at two dogs fighting over one bowl of food, they understand clearly the idea of the "zero sum" game. If one suffers and gets less, the other gains more. The religious doctrine of atonement is IMO just a twisted logical fallacy based on that one basic instinct.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

So if you look at two dogs fighting over one bowl of food, they understand clearly the idea of the "zero sum" game.

As a general observation, most religious people I know appear to believe, or at least behave as though they believe, that life is a zero-sum game across multiple, unrelated domains. Non-religious people, again in my experience, tend to be positive-summers.