The Problem of Pleasure
Philip Yancey, Soul Survivor: How My Faith Survived the Church:
In addition to the problem of pain, G.K. Chesterton seemed equally fascinated with its opposite, the problem of pleasure. He found materialism too thin to account for the sense of wonder and delight that gives an almost magical dimension to such basic human acts as sex, childbirth, play, and artistic creation.
Why is sex fun? Reproduction surely does not require pleasure: some animals simply split in half to reproduce, and even humans use methods of artificial insemination that involve no pleasure. Why is eating enjoyable? Plants and the lower animals obtain their quota of nutrients without the luxury of taste buds. Why are there colors? Some people get along just fine without the ability to see color. Why complicate vision for all the rest of us?
It struck me, after reading my umpteenth book on the problem of pain, that I have never even seen a book on “the problem of pleasure.“ Nor have I met a philosopher who goes around shaking his or her head in perplexity over the question of why we experience pleasure. Yet it looms as a huge question: the philosophical equivalent, for atheists, to the the problem of pain for Christians. On the issue of pleasure, Christians can breathe easier. A good and loving God would naturally want his creatures to experience delight, joy, and personal fulfillment. Christians start from that assumption and then look for ways to explain the origin of suffering. But should not atheists have an equal obligation to explain the origin of pleasure in a world of randomness and meaninglessness?
I’m not quite sure why this particular passage came to mind this morning like it did, especially considering our present circumstances (more on those soon, hopefully), but it did and so there you have it.
Comments
Mr eel
January 15, 2008 4:03am“But should not atheists have an equal obligation to explain the origin of pleasure in a world of randomness and meaninglessness?“
There is a naturalistic explanation for pleasure. It’s stimulus to do things we need to. Eat and procreate. As animals it benefits us and our species to do both.
I must admit, I find the question above to be a slightly strange. Why exactly should atheists be obligated? As far as I can see it’s not connected to the issue of theism at all.
Jason
January 15, 2008 11:46amChristians (and other theists) are often challenged to explain why pain and suffering exist if God is, as the Bible claims, a good and loving god. It’s an age-old question, and a legitimate one—and it has been used by many folks as a way to call Christianity’s claims into question.
Yancey’s point is that noone seems to be asking that question’s counterpart, though.
Groucho Castaneda
January 16, 2008 2:52pmAtheists (and all other materialists who endorse evolutionary “theory”) have both sides of the pain/pleasure dichotomy pretty well resolved. As Mr. Eel pointed out, pleasure is a mechanism that predisposes the conscious mind to take actions that would improve an organism’s genes’ chances for perpetuating themselves within the environmental context in which the organism evolved (e.g., consuming as much food, getting as much rest, and having as many offspring as possible - taking for granted that the environment will present plenty of opporunities to burn calories running from predators and rivals, and endless scarcity and disease to keep the population in check). Pain is quite simply the opposite: a mechanism that discourages the conscious mind from taking actions that would hurt an organism’s genes’ chances for perpetuating themselves (e.g., jumping into a fire and burning to death, running around without clothes in a snowstorm, stabbing oneself with sharpened rocks).
Theists, on the other hand, have problems on both sides of the pleasure/pain coin. Why does sin feel good, while virtue often feels bad? In itself, orgasmic release is a sheer joy, especially when experienced with new partners; meanwhile, chastity will eventually drive any red-blooded human of either gender insane. Gluttony and sloth are fun, apart from the occasional bout of indigestion or bed sores, meanwhile fasting and dilligence can be agonizing.
Don’t get me wrong: I see a great deal of value in hard work, moderate consumption, and sexual fidelity. However, as an atheist who accepts the facts of evolutionary biology, I understand why so many things that feel pleasurable carry negative long-term consequences, and I don’t have to ask why some deity would instill in me desires contrary to my best interests, or wonder how my flesh became so “corrupted” by “original sin”. The simple fact is that, while my neocortex has developed an understanding of how our environment has changed since prehistoric times, and how instinctive behaviors might not be beneficial in this context, my brain stem (“reptilian brain”) is incapable of such adaptation, and still bombards my consciousness with obsolete, “inappopriate” impulses.
Jason
January 16, 2008 4:07pmI think theists have fewer problems with the pain/pleasure dichotomy than you might think. You briefly mentioned several explanations in your last paragraph—“original sin” being one of them—though you were fairly dismissive of them.
Also, I don’t think that any Christian worth their orthodoxy would say that God has instilled within us desires that are contrary to our best interests. Every “evil” desire is merely a “good” desire that has been twisted beyond its original, God-intended purpose.
Groucho Castaneda
January 16, 2008 11:52pmTaken as metaphor, original sin can be regarded as the antisocial impulses of our DNA. It is, after all, inborn and inherited, just like our genetic predispositions. For ancient and medieval people who had no inkling that their thoughts process was being influenced by tiny strings of protein strewn throughout their bodies, that would be a perfectly good means of understanding their condition. Fair enough.
Taken at face value… well, I’d prefer not to disrespect the original intent of the Bible by playing the “did Noah bring all the germs and viruses in the world with him on the Ark and if so why didn’t he and all the animals die” game.
So, I suppose more syncretistic theists may have a valid, metaphorical answer to the questions of pleasure and pain. However, fundamentalist theists - as in most matters - do not.