"In a fallen world, the only currency of love is suffering. Indeed, the only way to gauge the extent to which someone loves us is by what that person is willing to suffer for us. Without the cost incurred by suffering, love among fallen creatures becomes cheap and self-indulgent. Suffering removes the suspicion that the good we do for one another is for ulterior motives, with strings attached, a quid pro quo."
--William A. Dembski [pdf]
Discuss.
4 comments:
Makes me glad we don't live in a "fallen world," whatever that is.
I suppose a more complete response would be to describe what my world is like in those aspects I can map onto Mr. Dembski's world, or what I can make of it from that paragraph. "Love"? Covers a lot of things. I call "love" even what I've felt for people who were cruel to me and didn't seem to me to feel "love" back, and who seemed to find my "love" annoying. "Fallen world"? Perhaps Mr. Dembski is talking about how self-interested everybody seems to be so much of the time. Well, yes, that's the world for you, and I'd say everybody always acts in accordance with self-interest as construed by that component of the self that is at that moment decisive, even if at that moment you're committing suicide or running into a burning building to save your child. If pursuing self-interest didn't present mutually attractive ends over a wide range of options, boy would we be in for it. Fortunately for us, our lineage has adapted such that this is often the case, especially when it comes to sex...except for those frequent instances of heartbreak and annoyance. A box of chocolates does go a long way though. Of course, they work just as well when stolen, received as a gift, or bought on credit.
Dembski is a master at leaving things undefined. What is suffering?
A marathon runner suffers for over 26 miles but in the end feels good about himself. According to Dembski who do marathon runners love? Themselves? And that is true love?
Likewise, for the hope of sex, I've seen men invite and endure suffering in order to impress the female just enough to get her to go to bed with him. According to Dembski that's true love.
Dembski here uses the word suffering but with two apparently different definitions. This is what Dembski is famous for.
In the beginning his definition of suffering is just to go through a time of pain or agony. But in the end he says that suffering means no ulterior motives. Which means either he's an idiot, or he means "true" suffering, or what I might call "net" suffering (where one suffers with no thought of gain in return).
I don't think it's suffering. I think it's service.
Post a Comment