You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 : 9:54 a.m.

Religion & Science: Is suffering meaningless or meaningful?

By Wayne Baker

Editor's note: Dr. Wayne Baker is writing a series on reproductive genetic technology at his blog, Our Values, this week. This is the second article in the series.

The cathedral was the tallest building in medieval Europe. In many modern cities, the medical center is the tallest structure, a testament to its importance in civilization today, as John Evans points out in “Contested Reproduction: Genetic Technologies, Religion and Public Debate.”

Modern medicine is devoted to the relief of suffering. A central theme is that all suffering is meaningless, and it’s a moral obligation to alleviate it. And it’s not just the suffering of a patient but also the patient’s family and friends. The parents of a child with Tay-Sachs — a genetic disorder that destroys the central nervous system —  or cystic fibrosis suffer along with child. Reproductive genetic technologies or RGTs offer an ever-increasing array of medical options to avoid suffering — each one a potential ethical dilemma. (Read yesterday’s post about options for Tay-Sachs.)

One central dilemma is the role of human suffering. Alongside the scientific view of suffering as meaningless is an alternative religious view: suffering is never pointless. Suffering is always meaningful. Indeed, suffering is central to spirituality and self-understanding.

The role of suffering in religion has three sources, Evans points out.

  1. One goes back to Adam and Eve and their fall from grace. Suffering, then, is punishment for original sin.
  2. A second view is that God suffers with us, and to eliminate suffering diminishes the importance of God in our lives.
  3. A third view is that suffering is the way to moral perfection. Suffering leads to personal and spiritual growth. Suffering makes us worthy.

From these perspectives, the relief of suffering is either impossible or undesirable.

What is your interpretation of suffering?

Do these three sources of interpretation make sense to you?

Or, do you have a different approach to the problem of suffering?

Dr. Wayne E. Baker is a sociologist on the senior faculty of the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. Dr. Baker blogs daily at Our Values and can be reached at ourvaluesproject@gmail.com.

Comments

David Spence

Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 9:53 a.m.

Thank you, Rebbapragada, for introducing a non-Christian religious perspective to this debate. I find your blend of religious and scientific perspective to be both fascinating and useful. Tru2Blu76, although it is possible that I might disagree with you on many questions of religious doctrine (who knows?), I absolutely agree with your post. And so finally, I wanted to state explicitly what was implicit in my comments yesterday, that I find no basis for the author's assertion, "From these [religious] perspectives, the relief of suffering is either impossible or undesirable." Consistent with the paradigms expressed in the last four posts, from a religious perspective, the relief of suffering is both possible and desirable.

David Spence

Wed, Dec 1, 2010 : 10:30 a.m.

First of all, I completely agree with everything Heidi Hess Saxton had to say and will try to avoid duplicating her comments here. I vigorously disagree with Macabre Sunset's assertion that religion and science are antonyms. Although I acknowledge that some theists do hold positions contrary to generally accepted scientific theory, there are many who do not. As a Catholic Christian and an engineer by training, I find no conflict between Catholic doctrine and the great many branches of science that I have studied. I personally take issue with Mr. Baker's three assertions regarding the role of suffering in religion: 1. One goes back to Adam and Eve and their fall from grace. Suffering, then, is punishment for original sin. Most Christians who believe in the doctrine of original sin, I think, hold that suffering is a consequence of original sin, not directly a punishment for it. The punishment was the loss of the intimate relationship with God enjoyed in the Garden. The consequence was a disordered world in which suffering is commonplace. Much suffering, in fact, is inflicted by sinful human beings, of which I number myself as one. 2. A second view is that God suffers with us, and to eliminate suffering diminishes the importance of God in our lives. Christians, at least, do hold that God suffers with us or, more specifically, that Jesus suffered for us. I have never met anyone who would agree that "to eliminate suffering diminishes the importance of God in out lives." That's just silly. 3. A third view is that suffering is the way to moral perfection. Suffering leads to personal and spiritual growth. Suffering makes us worthy. I don't know that suffering is *the* way to moral perfection, but yes, suffering can lead to personal and spiritual growth if, as Ms Saxton pointed out, we respond to it in a good way. Not to speak for other religions, but I am not aware of any Christian denomination that holds that "suffering makes us worthy."

Macabre Sunset

Tue, Nov 30, 2010 : 6:44 p.m.

I would agree that suffering can lead to personal growth. But what that has to do with religion escapes me.

Michigan Reader

Tue, Nov 30, 2010 : 5:51 p.m.

@Heidi Hess Saxton--I agree 100% with your post.

John H. Evans

Tue, Nov 30, 2010 : 5:07 p.m.

I am the author of the book that is discussed in the original post, and it is nice to see people talking about it. You all might be interested to know that almost no Americans believe in #1 anymore. While #2 has a long history in Christian art, such as in the suffering Christ on the cross, it is not widely held by Christians either. Among those who see suffering having any meaning, and many do not, #3 is the most common view. Why we can ask, would one of these long term Christian ideas be more popular in contemporary America than another? My theory, which I cannot demonstrate to you at this point, is that #3 fits well with Americans' "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" orientation. You should not wallow in suffering, it should be productive, like eating your spinach. Just a theory at this point...

Top Cat

Tue, Nov 30, 2010 : 1 p.m.

Now I know why my brethren Sylvester always said "Suffering Succotash!"

Ignatz

Tue, Nov 30, 2010 : 12:44 p.m.

Suffering is meaningful. It symbolizes the need to seek medical treatment.

robyn

Tue, Nov 30, 2010 : 12:39 p.m.

I guess I'm just a bad Christian, I see no reason why God would want people to suffer. Logically - I can understand what causes it but I see no connection to God. My beliefs stem from reading the Bible - not necessarily going to a church and listening to what someone else has to say to make it all 'believable'. You have to figure that Adam and Eve were pertfect humans. Any rational person would realize that the farther away from that perfection one goes, the less perfect the human species will become. We pass on genetic abnormalities - the right combination can equal someone who has been genetically predisposed to certain illness'. Don't see how God plays a role in that at all. I do think that the way people handle illness and suffering has more to do with God and faith than does the actual suffering. There have been studies that show faith in God has helped people that are ill. Maybe it's just an inner strength or some sort of 'peace' in knowing that the state we live in here is just temporary. Explaining the suffering of the world - can't really blame God for that either. When Jesus was on the mountain it was made pretty clear that God isn't here anymore. He's not in charge of the world at this time. People suffer - whether it's physical or mental, I know my faith has helped me get through some difficult times in my life. Not like God came and changed everything - but I think just having that faith gave me the strength and determination to move forward. Having people around me that share that faith was also helpful - it was a constant reminder that we are not in this alone. As far as medicine goes - if God gave man the intelligence to understand science and use it to help other people - it's a good thing. If medicine helps alleviate suffering, then it should be used.

debling

Tue, Nov 30, 2010 : 12:33 p.m.

On the three sources proposed, 1 makes no senses as the innocent suffer (sometimes disproportionately) as well as the sinful 2 is silly. How would anyone know whether God suffers or not? If he is truly omnipotent then he can control whether he suffers or not. 3 is political in nature. These arguments have been used for centuries by organized religion and states to convince common folk suffering and sacrifice is for the better. All of this is part of human nature to try to rationalize a cruel and complex world. Like the belief in supernatural beings and the afterlife, humans try to cope with distasteful things in our world like death and disease by making up stuff to make them feel more comfortable.

Speechless

Tue, Nov 30, 2010 : 11:58 a.m.

Pain and suffering is just God's way of hurting you.

Bridget Bly

Tue, Nov 30, 2010 : 11:47 a.m.

Explaining human suffering has always been difficult for Christians. While there may be some good outcomes of suffering, there are a lot more bad ones, so why would an all-powerful and beneficent God create/allow suffering? See Bart Ehrman's book God's Problem for a very interesting discussion of the ways Christianity has tried, over the years, to explain this conundrum.

Macabre Sunset

Tue, Nov 30, 2010 : 10:44 a.m.

Since religion and science are antonyms, it's a rather pointless discussion. Let's say you suffer horrible pain. You can either choose to seek relief, or you can choose to have faith that an invisible magical being wants to cause you pain so you endure the pain. From this viewpoint, religion is a lot like asking a child to remain in a home where he is being beaten.

Heidi Hess Saxton

Tue, Nov 30, 2010 : 10:25 a.m.

Interesting article. Of the three alternatives listed here, the traditional Catholic perspective is #3 -- with an important caveat. Suffering, in and of itself, is of no moral value. What matters is our response to it. Attitude is everything. When we offer our sufferings back to God, trusting Him to bring something good out of it, it can have a purifying affect on the soul. However, if we turn inward -- getting angry and bitter over the injustice of it all -- it has a hardening affect. According to the Christian tradition, the suffering and atoning death of Christ redeems mankind from sin -- original and personal. In our own sufferings, we have an opportunity to identify with Christ, becoming more like him. "Dying, he destroyed our death, rising he restored our life." That's the theological perspective. On a personal level, I'd also have to say that it is our own personal suffering that makes it possible to identify and empathize with the sufferings of those around us. Even those who do not identify with the Christian world view, through their own struggles and sufferings, can become more sympathetic to the pain of others -- if they choose. Again, it's more about one's attitude toward pain than the pain itself.