A better response to suffering
Unbelievers and skeptics of theism often cite the reality of seemingly gratuitous suffering in the world as grounds for rejecting the notion of a good, all-powerful God. But what if it could be argued that they are actually responsible for it? And don’t look now, but…you and I as well.
I have a friend who suffers and has suffered more than most of us every will. Three of her four children died young, two of them struggled with health issues for years, and she suffers from multiple, complex physical conditions and ailments that have her in constant pain and struggling just to have some semblance of a semblance of a normal life. Her faith in God has been tested but has withstood and even been strengthened by her trials.
Yet though she tries not to, she finds herself at times questioning why he would allow so much pain in her life. I also wonder about it, as I think of and pray for her. Though we both know we may never have that answer, we believe there is one. The most reasonable inference from all the evidence we have is that God is perfectly good and loving and nothing is impossible for him. So it follows that he has good reasons for allowing suffering in the world. It may be punishment on account of the sufferer’s sin or to call attention to his need to turn to and trust in God. But it also may instead be meant to impact the lives of those observing the suffering.
You may have heard it said that some virtues, like compassion, would never be developed apart from suffering. Were there no one to feel “sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of,” so the definition of compassion, we would all be lacking this superlative virtue. As I considered my friend and her love for and devotion to God and how she has only wanted to spend her life in service to him, yet she like righteous Job is continually getting clobbered with misfortune and pain, I wondered whether I and others might actually be the target of God’s training. Perhaps her suffering has as its intended objective the development of our character and Christ-likeness. And I grieved over how our obtuseness may be prolonging her pain.
Could I and others in my friend’s circle relieve much of her suffering by attending to what God may be wanting to teach us through it? When a parent’s discipline of a child achieves its intended result, doesn’t that parent put an end to it? If God’s purpose in afflicting the undeserving is to move those around them to action and character development, then it seems to me the sooner we act and develop the sooner the affliction will be removed.
I am firmly convinced that God has good reasons for allowing suffering in the world. Most of it does not concern us but some of it certainly does, whether we are the ones having to endure a trial or are being confronted with pain and suffering in the lives of others. And what doesn’t concern us concerns someone…somewhere. Perhaps if instead of bemoaning the reality of suffering we did our darnedest to learn, grow, and act in response to it, we’d see much of it end.
So although God has the ability to create us already perfect, he would rather take the long route through pain and suffering to get us there?
I’m sorry but this doesn’t make God seem any less sadistic.
LikeLike
Hi, there. If you please, how would you define or describe “perfect” as you have used it here?
LikeLike
The conditions we are told await us in heaven. But the definition of ‘perfect’ isn’t too important, let’s just say ‘without suffering’.
LikeLike
Do you believe it’s impossible for a good God to have good reasons for allowing suffering?
LikeLike
Nothing is impossible. If it was true I wouldn’t label him as the all loving and powerful god we hear of, it sounds like a very odd and terrible system to use.
If you are only assuming this is the reason for suffering, what makes you think he doesn’t just enjoy it?
If God is worthy of worship, he would nave no reasons whatsoever to allow suffering of any kind.
LikeLike
So it seems you do believe it’s impossible for a good God (one who is “worthy of worship”) to have good reasons for allowing suffering. Would you please provide some evidence or a good argument for your position?
LikeLike
When did I say it was impossible? And why do I need the evidence? You claim there may be a God that allows suffering for good reason. Surely you need to provide the evidence?
LikeLike
You seem to be equivocating. You said “Nothing is impossible” but also “If God is worthy of worship [in other words, the traditional concept of God to which I am referring], he would have no reasons whatsoever to allow suffering of any kind.” So are you saying it IS possible that God could have good reasons for allowing suffering, or not?
LikeLike
It could be possible, but you have no way to know other than to make assumptions. For that reason, your God isn’t communicating well enough to receive the praise he gets. May I ask, do you feel your God is all loving and all powerful?
LikeLike
If you believe it’s possible that God has good reasons for allowing suffering, then as a human being with limited knowledge and perspective, you are ill-equipped to judge him. And in answer to your question…yes.
LikeLike
As human beings we have limited knowledge and are ill equipped to come to a religious conclusion 😉
To me, an all powerful and loving God allowing suffering is like 2+2 equalling 5.
That or, God doesn’t really exist. I’ll let you have the last word 🙂
LikeLike
How kind of you. 😉 We are not ill-equipped to make “religious conclusions” because we have evidence all over the place. We make reasonable inferences from it leading us to make truth claims (not without a certain measure of faith) based on that evidence. And if you allow that “an all powerful and loving God” is not incompatible with the reality of suffering, comparing the concept to a self-evident false equation contradicts your admission. I really hope you’ll make an effort to be properly skeptical about your own beliefs and assertions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Character building as an answer to the problem of suffering/ evil | Random thoughts
It was actually the late Christopher Hitchens that said “IF the theistic answer of Christianity are true then we have a very congruent and acceptable explanation for the question of evil”
It is rather obvious the suffering is on account of our own disobedience and hatred for God, our decisions have more of a ripple effect than we could ever imagine. Because God is not a tyrant he doesn’t coerce people to be good or do the right thing, life will always hang in the balance of free-will, this is why it’s so authentic. It is a common understanding throughout scripture that children are often visited by the sins of their fathers, this is a lessor in which we can all learn the importance and responsibility of our own actions. We can change the world for good or we can spread death and destruction.
LikeLike
Have you ever considered the more likely, excuse-free possibility of the Omnimalevolent Creator?
LikeLike
Hi, John. Nice to hear from you again. How do you figure an Omnimalevolent creator is “more likely”?
LikeLike
Hi Caroline, hope you’re doing well.
Simple, it doesn’t require excuses. Malevolence explains this world, a world that cannot be called Good, and although deeply and personally offensive to those who have dreamed of some alternative, it is the only explanation that exists without need for elaborate theodicies, incredible alibis, creative scapegoats, or painfully laboured advocacy designed to excuse an incompetent spirit who has, for one imaginative reason or another, lost total control of his creation. Without need for a cover story or inventive pretext, the gospel of the malevolent hand stands unchaste, uncontaminated, and inviolable as the only rational explanation for the world that has been, is, and will be.
LikeLike
So on your theory of an omnimalevolent creator, how do you account for goodness and our ability to recognize it as superior to evil?
LikeLike
The Problem of Good, you mean? That’s not a problem at all. An animal must be in a position to know it is suffering, and it cannot know this unless it has something to contrast and compare its experience again. For suffering to be meaningful, for it to be intelligible, it must be superimposed against its mirror experience. By this process an animal’s current state of affairs are continuously compared to a ‘peak point’ which is always established in times of plenty; a high-water mark of pleasure which the Creator permits by way of necessity so as to put the rich fields of suffering in stark contrast. Good, therefore, is necessary for the experience of evil. A ship, after all, has to be floated and launched before it can be drowned and sunk.
LikeLike
So do you believe that good is morally superior to evil? And if so, on what basis?
LikeLike
This is not a question of aesthetics, Caroline, rather nutrition. You can’t judge what the Creator finds most stimulating, arousing, entertaining, or nourishing. Why does The Owner of All Infernal Names consume suffering? Why does the omnipotent, omnipresent source of all things feast on sorrow and misery and confusion and anxiety and pain, and not love, compassion, goodness or kindness? Why create a universe that works instinctively towards greater expressions of mayhem and danger if a universe could be created that was driven towards forever expanding paradigms of peace and trusted security? It is a conspicuous and pressing question, yet well might you ask: Why does man consume oxygen? To cyanobacteria it would appear a filthy, grotesque, and unquestionably revolting diet. How else, after all, but with certain repulsion would one organism describe the dietary practices of another organism that consumes the first organism’s waste: its faeces?
What you have to ask is which is the more reasonable, rational explanation for the nature of this world: the one that requires no excuse, no imaginative theodicy, no cover story, no alibi or scapegoat, or, the one that demands all these things just to excuse a spirit who has lost total control of his creation?
LikeLike
I was obviously not talking aesthetics, John, but morality. And you did not answer my question.
LikeLike
I most certainly did answer it, and it is a matter of aesthetics: of definition. Morality has no bearing on anything. It is a human concept, the residue of a mind, useful only to the Creator from the perspective that humans can—and do, regularly—break their own, forever shifting ideas of proper conduct, and that causes great anxiety inside the trinkets of the Creator’s greatest amusement. He wants you to have a moral code. It’s frames greater expressions of suffering.
Now, you did not answer my question, Caroline. Why not? Which is the more reasonable, rational explanation for the nature of this world: the one that requires no excuse, no imaginative theodicy, no cover story, no alibi or scapegoat, or, the one that demands all these things just to excuse a spirit who has lost total control of his creation?
LikeLike
I remind you, this post of your is nothing but you inventing another excuse for your concept of a god. You have been forced into creating cover stories to explain the world. What I am suggesting requires no excuse, no cover story.
LikeLike
You’re reminding me? John, if you want to dispute anything I’ve said in this post, please provide a good argument and evidence. If you want to believe in a Most Evil Being you go right ahead. But if you want anyone to take you seriously you need to do more than provide a fanciful, made-up explanation of reality and pooh-pooh rational theism as mere excuses. You need to provide evidence for this being and include it in a worldview that makes sense of everything we know and observe.
LikeLike
Caroline, you still haven’t answered my question. Why not?
Which is the more reasonable, rational explanation for the nature of this world: the one that requires no excuse, no imaginative theodicy, no cover story, no alibi or scapegoat, or, the one that demands all these things just to excuse a spirit who has lost total control of his creation?
LikeLike
I didn’t answer your question because I think it’s obvious that I believe theism, and more specifically Christianity, is “the more reasonable, rational explanation for the nature of this world.” In fact it’s the MOST reasonable and rational explanation. That’s why I believe in it and why I will continue to try and persuade others to as well. I’m grateful I live in a country where it’s still the dominant worldview, but if we don’t stand up and defend it we may find it otherwise before too long.
I am fully convinced of what I profess, and perhaps you are also, John. But one of us is wrong. And though you may enjoy the back and forth on this blog and others, it’s about so much more than winning an argument. I don’t know why you have rejected God but I pray you reconsider the possibility that he does exist and that the Bible is true. He created you to know him and be with him forever. But he won’t force you into a relationship. Don’t miss out on what he has designed for you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In fact it’s the MOST reasonable and rational explanation
How do you figure that when here you are, in this very post, being forced to invent imaginative theodicies—cover stories—just to explain the everyday reality of this world? To maintain your belief you have to create elaborate excuses just to rescue your god from the extreme inconsistencies you cannot help but see and experience every minute of every day. I don’t see that as the most reasonable or rational position. A genuine god would not require rescuing. A genuine god would require no defence, no alibi, no pretext. A genuine truth does not, after all, tolerate excuses. Clearly, a “truth” that requires annotation is not a truth, but a fabrication.
That just stands to reason.
Anyway, if for emotional reasons you need to believe in a creator spirit, I can certainly understand and appreciate you wanting to believe in a Good Father (who hides from the world for no appreciable or plausible reason) rather than a Wicked one who is not seen because He cherishes His anonymity, and does not seek to be known to or worshipped by that which He has created (or has allowed to be created). Although the far more rational and reasonable explanation for this world, it is not, I agree, a pleasant one.
LikeLike
Caroline, hi
As a flow through on our brief conversation here, I have just released a book on the subject. It was nearing completion as we had this dialogue, and I would be thrilled to hear your thoughts on it. It’s a formal thesis, so I’d invite a formal rebuttal.
A part of the Introduction to the Argument is posted now on my blog, and all the links to Amazon are in the black and white cover icon to the right of the page.
All proceeds also go directly to animal rescue and shelter here in Brazil, so you’ll be doing genuine good.
Hope to hear from you soon
J
LikeLike
I appreciate your interest in my thoughts on it, John. I’ll have a look at it soon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re a good person
LikeLike
I’m truly touched by your comment, John. Unless of course it was meant to foster happy feelings that the OOAIN can then enjoy stomping on. 😉
I’m not sure if your thesis about an omnimalevolent creator is serious or satirical, but apart from the fact that there is no good evidence for him/it, on your thesis how do you ground “good”? On what basis do you determine that good is superior to evil?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do think you’re a good person, Caroline. Your calm, and that is admirable.
Now, how can you say there is no evidence when you haven’t even read the treatise? I do lay out the evidences quite clearly.
Good on you for raising “good.” I appreciate the fact that you’re thinking. It’s a legitimate argument, and is thoroughly dealt with in The Problem of Good.
LikeLike
I read your post on that from March 10 of last year on the Problem of Good and you didn’t answer it there. All I could discern were possible explanations for why there is good in the world, but no foundation or standard from which to judge the good as better, if you will, than evil. If our creator is perfectly malevolent, wouldn’t what is commonly considered evil actually be the good? Doesn’t our innate sense of justice and morality imply something higher and greater than an OOAIN?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, that post was a treatment of Christopher New’s 1993 essay: Antitheism. It was more tongue-in-cheek. I think you’ll find my treatment on the Problem of Good to be far more detailed and far-ranging. Without rehashing the entire essay, let’s just say good (moral and natural) is merely a mechanism to greater expressions of pain, anxiety and suffering. I use a number of examples to demonstrate this. The Creator encourages good. It is, in fact, necessary, although our terrestrial definitions of “good” are misplaced.
LikeLike
“our terrestrial definitions of “good” are misplaced.” So are you saying that what we naturally think of as good is actually bad?
LikeLike
Exactly! In the long run, yes. Yes, many things can be genuinely “good,” and some even massively constructive, but in the final analysis it all only drives creation to greater and more complex expressions of misery. I explain this quite thoroughly in the book.
LikeLike
John, you think I’m a good person, and I appreciate that. Do you think you are as well? And if so, what does that mean on your thesis? It’s very admirable that you are giving the proceeds from your book to an animal shelter, but if that is a “good” deed in your estimation, morally-speaking…a superior act to torturing animals…on what basis do you determine that? I know I’m repeating myself, but I don’t believe you’ve addressed that. And if you have an answer, you should be able to summarize it without referring me to your book. If it’s “good” in the estimation of the OOAIN it’s not a moral good but a practical or functional good, which is something else entirely.
LikeLike
I have answered you, and you have just answered yourself, too.
Why the dance?
LikeLike
No dance. I don’t believe you have, and I know I haven’t.
LikeLike
You just did.
But if you’re just going to dance and not actually engage the subject in a coherent and meaningful way then we have nothing really further to say.
LikeLike
Wow. Okay, John. It’s just as I expected. You have nothing to ground morality on in your fanciful metanarrative of a supreme malevolent being. But you will continue to discern the true good because that’s how you were made…by a supremely good being.
LikeLike
And again, you have already answered the question, as have I.
You are dancing simply because you do not wish to continue forward. You do not wish to engage the subject in a coherent or adult manner. It would seem then that you are freely acknowledging that those beliefs which you hold dear today are too fragile—too brittle and unsound—to be challenged by an alternative, clearly superior thesis.
For what it is worth, I can appreciate and, in many genuine ways, even sympathise with the thorny position you have found yourself in here. Those susceptible to superstitions, such as yourself, generally find it tremendously difficult to move beyond the comforting madness of false associations.
Good luck to you, Caroline, and travel well.
LikeLike