[+/-] The Conclusion of the Matter

I haven't posted in a while because I don't really know what to say. I've tried to get into my thinking zone and work this through to its logical conclusion, but my mind seems unwilling to do so. I can understand why: the conclusions that seem most fitting to me also feel repulsive and not at all in sync with my intuitions, feelings or disposition.

These are my thoughts: Although there are many compelling arguments that can account for a variety of different forms of suffering, in my opinion there are examples of suffering (the most clear-cut, I think, is natural animal suffering) for which no satisfactory explanation can be given. Whether God's allowance of any given type of suffering (everyday discomfort, human cruelty and selfishness, natural disasters, horrific diseases, animal suffering, etc.) seems justified to you is probably the result of various personal factors. Some people find certain examples of suffering more troubling than others, and I don't think we can come to a consensus about what does or doesn't instinctively feel wrong. But I believe most of us can agree, if we examine the issue carefully enough, that some suffering seems gratuitous, and thus if we cannot agree about precisely how troubling the existence of pain is, at the least I hope we can appreciate that for some people, it is a very great problem indeed.

For myself the problem is significant. At this point in my life I cannot allay my feeling that there is something horribly wrong with this world. I believe - or have believed - in an unfathomably (if not infinitely) good, powerful, and wise God, and also in gratuitous suffering. I see very clearly that these beliefs are inconsistent. Four possible solutions occur to me.

1. I could deny God's goodness. From a purely logical standpoint, this seems to be the simplest and most obvious solution. The world is full of suffering, thus God (if there is a God) must wish it to be so. I could say with Paul that God has the right to create conscious beings whose sole purpose is to be objects of his wrath. (Of course, Paul wouldn't say that God is evil, but rather that what seems to me to be the greatest of evils would be just and good if perpetrated by God.) But I think if I could make myself really believe this about God, I would just as soon kill myself and be apart from him for eternity. Above all else, I cannot and will not believe that God is not good.

2. I could deny God's power. Perhaps the God who fashioned the universe out of nothing is somehow incapable of making it better than it is, or of fixing it when it goes wrong. Perhaps genocides and tsunamis and plagues occur because some cosmic law, some "deep magic from the dawn of time", renders God powerless to prevent them. Perhaps this world is simply the best he could do. But for a boy who was raised on the hope of heaven, on the assurance of a final victory over evil and death and an eternity of fellowship with God, such sever limiting of God's power casts a shadow on all hope. I am not opposed to God having some limits on his power, for example those that require a personal sacrifice to achieve reconciliation or hardships to develop character. However, a God who is incapable of preventing vast and unnecessary anguish is not a God I could find much comfort in trusting. I will not believe in a weak God.

3. I could deny God's knowledge. It occurs to me that the savagery of nature, the fallenness of man, and even the creation of the devil (if you believe in such a being) can be neatly explained by supposing that God does not know the future. If God could not perfectly predict the results of his actions, if he's just doing the best he can, it makes perfect sense that things would go wrong. The problem with this belief (similarly to the one above) is that the fate of every creature in the universe is in the hands of a being who wields unthinkable power, but doesn't really know what he's doing. And considering his track record to this point, I would not be at all confident that he could pull us through. If you can really understand and believe that God has no knowledge of the future and continue with your life, you're much braver than I am. For the sake of my sanity, I can't believe in an ignorant God.

4. The final option I see is to deny the existence of gratuitous (purposeless) suffering. This is the most popular option, I think, for theists. Certainly it is the most appealing. That all pain has a purpose is a wonderful thing to believe, if you can. Moreover, I think it's a respectable position. We as humans can't be expected to understand everything that goes on in the mind of God. As impossible as it seems that a world so fraught with pain and evil could be created and sustained by a wholly loving, wise and powerful God, it would nonetheless be arrogant and foolish for us to say that this cannot be the case. A theist, generally, is someone who is able to trust - for whatever reason, and however foolish it may look on paper - that God has good cause to allow even the most monstrous earthly suffering. I do not begrudge them this ability, but neither do I posses it. My mind balks at the idea that even the suffering which seems most gratuitous is in fact not so; that all things - all - work together for good. While I readily admit the possibility that this is the case, I cannot bring myself to believe in it.

So where does that leave me? I suppose there is a fifth option, and that is atheism. I suspect most atheists are made in this way. The problem of pain seems so deep and so dark that it makes most sense to them to get rid of the whole thing. Given my beliefs (or disbeliefs) as listed above, I think this is a very reasonable option. Why should I not take it? I've had no special experiences with God. He does not interact with me or with the world around me in any way I can perceive. I know of few - if any - compelling arguments for God's existence. Futhermore, I believe I could function as a reasonably confident, ethical, content human being without a belief in any higher being. What stops me from taking this natural step to disbelief in God? The same thing that overruled the previous four solutions: necessity.

In a perfect world (or in my idea of a perfect world) we would form beliefs based on what seemed to be the best available evidence. In our world, I think we often believe what we must. I don't mean "must" in the sense of "I must believe in God because otherwise I'd be hopeless and afraid" (though that's also quite common) but in the sense of "I must believe this because regardless of all evidence to the contrary, I can't seem to make myself disbelieve it." I suppose I could impose on my mind any one of the five solutions above. "See here, mind," I would say, "logic has been employed, conclusions have been drawn, and in the interests of honesty and consistency you must now believe the following", to which my mind would sullenly consent. But to do so would feel unnatural - even dishonest - for me, like forcing on myself left-handedness, or interest in baseball, or the belief that I have a personal relationship with Jesus.

Some may see the hand of God in this, protecting me from the great sin of unbelief. I suspect a far less spectacular explanation, namely that upbringing and convention have so entrenched the idea of a god (possessing very specific characteristics) in my mind that it cannot presently be plucked out even by an equally strong belief in the existence of gratuitous suffering. But whatever the reason, I feel that I have no alternative but to accept that I hold these contradictory beliefs. I doubt that it will always be so (my beliefs are ever in flux) but at present I cannot escape this inconsistency. Not that I see no possible solutions - any of the five I discussed above should suffice - but I see none that I find myself capable of genuinely believing.

This is rather embarrassing for me as a philosopher. I do not suffer from the illusion that the world is a simple place, or the expectation that I can make sense of anything if I put my mind to it, but I have always hoped that I could at least avoid glaring contradictions in my most foundational beliefs. In this I seem to have failed, for now.