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.
Post a Comment
8 comments:
A (rather disconcerting) thought, however, on the idea that "perhaps all suffering is suffering is necessary". Firstly, I agree with you that it certainly doesn't look that way. (I too, have asked questions, relating such things as Adolf Hitler's survinving numerous attempts on his life, both in war and as a leader. Why did God allow him to live when it would be to move a bullet an inch to the left.)
Perhaps God's goals, God's purposes, God's "good" is so far above our own that what happens in human life is only a tiny part of what He experiences. We know only of God's interactions with us, nothing of his interactions with other supernatural beings, other living things on other planets, whole other universes, etc.
Some examples...
Perhaps much of human suffering is related to ideas and events far more than we could possibly fathom- think of Job's suffering as a result of God's bet with Satan. What amount of suffering is "worth it" for God to win a bet with the devil? What inherent "worth" is there at God's pleasure when he sees a human being overcome hardship and still cling to faith?
If (as a lot of charismatics would suggest) there are great spiritual conflicts going on between the forces of good and evil, perhaps human suffering is largely the result of "collateral damage" that is just not that important in the grand scheme of things?
Taking the traditional viewpoint that human salvation is dependant on belief, perhaps a world with more suffering forsters more "belief" and then more eternal salvation? I'm sure you've read some of Yancey's work, he writes pretty eloquently on the apparent links between suffering and faith.
Wow, this is a long post and I know my ideas are way out there. Please understand, I am not saying that I have solved the POP. In fact I think you are asking all the right questions. I just want to suggest that while for you and me, human suffering is perhaps the "strongest" thing we experience, to an Omni-everything God other things might matter a whole lot more.
One reason I can accept the suffering and death I see is because I know that our relationship with God transcends this world. To us, death is a dramatic end. To Him, it is merely another step in the journey.
The other reason I can accept what sometimes seems like a cruelly mistaken world is that I see no other way for it. God has given us freedom. Freedom is something that exists only where there is a choice. God has made us in his own image, with the ability to know good and evil. I cannot imagine a world in which there is no pain, no suffering, no evil in men's hearts or surroundings, yet they are free to do evil any time they choose. Having a choice means that some will choose badly. Even though I know that all things are possible with God, I really can't see how the world could be just slightly evil. For example, we would be able to give someone a shove if they were bothering us...but we couldn't stab them. We could hate as long as we never really acted on that hatred. Either you cannot hate or you can, And if you can hate, you can kill.
I believe that God allows us to go our own way and seek Him in our own time. I believe that we are never closer to Him than in times of suffering. At least that has been my personal experience.
I don't know if this is at all helpful, but I've been following your debates on this subject and thought I'd throw my two cents in.
Jill: I'm inclined to agree with you that suffering is a necessary result of human free will, and I think it may be worth it (though some would disagree). I would think that God would be able to intervene to avoid some of the more horrible abuses of free will, such as the holocost. But I don't really want to get into that question here and now.
The big limitation on the free will defence is that it says nothing about suffering as a result of disease, disasters, accidents, etc.
It is the height of arrogance, not to mention the opposite of the philosophical rigour that you avow, to allow “if we examine the issue carefully enough… some suffering seems gratuitous” to serve as the foundation for an argument this importance. To use the vernacular, “‘Maybe’ don’t pay the bills, baby.” Is there gratuitous suffering or not? We, as humans, are in no position to know. We are in a position to conjecture, as you have, but without certain premises, we cannot use deduction to proceed to a certain conclusion.
I am not suggesting that you ignore the problem that evil presents, blithely praising God and closing your eyes to the obvious examples of suffering that seem to have no purpose. I am suggesting that you approach God as the Psalmists did, with fury, frustration, confusion, and ultimately, with faith. Not faith that ignores the facts, but faith that recognizes that our grasp on the facts is tenuous and incomplete and insufficient. This is why the Psalmists were able to praise God still: because in spite of all that they saw, they believed that God was in control.
Let me tell you a little story, an allegory.
A man lived alone in the hills. He was desperately lonely, and dreamed that one day he would find a wife, but he had never seen a woman. Every week, he wrote poems describing himself, his loneliness, and his despair, and posted them on his weblog. Every week, there was no reply. One day, he realized that there were no women anywhere in the world; he was utterly and painfully alone, and would always be so. He knew it as plainly as he knew anything. Despair overtook him, and although he was still lonely, he lost hope that he would ever find her. He became familiar with GQ and Maxim magazine, each promising him that there were women, and even (ludicriously) promising ways to deepen his relationships with them. He read arguments of philosophers that gave reason to believe that women existed, and at times, he felt compelled by them, but he could never overcome the fact, the fact that was at the center of his experience: he knew no women.
Jacob, I cannot gaurentee that there are women out there. I cannot even promise that there is a God. I can promise you that all the argument in the world is not going to add God to your reality. I tell you this as a friend who loves you; I am convinced that you are directing your search in the wrong place. I spent many days where you are now, and I am not far enough removed from that place that I cannot remember, even very sharply, the frustration that you are describing. I believed that philosophy would save me; I now doubt the efficacy of philosophy for everything but entertainments. And I don’t know what to suggest, except this: pour all your attention into meeting God. Once you have met God, the discussion of the problem of evil becomes much more palatable. Until you have met God, it makes no difference one way or the other what you ultimately decide, you will still be alone.
I included a little quote (because you have not yet had enough to read) that I thought was interesting. It is about how little we human beings know.
“Consciousness is both a resource and a limitation. Consciousness has a narrow bandwidth. This makes most of the information that is active in a human system at a time consciously unprocessible at that time. In what the mediaevals called the sensorium (the collective of the five senses operating concurrently), there exists something in excess of 10 million bits of information per second; fewer than 40 bits filter into consciousness at those times.”
and thanks Jonas.
I really appreciated your comments here. You had some very valuable things to say.
I thought you might say that. I think your point about suspending judgement is well taken. As I've said before, this series on pain was more a process of working through a problem than it was an arguement or a postition paper. And I find the statement "I don't know how to overcome this inconsistency" far more palatable now that I've given the problem honest consideration.
My second comment on that point is that I do not feel it would be irresponsible for me to cease believing in God at this point on the grounds that there seems to be gratuitous suffering. We as humans are never (or at best, extremely rarely) able to draw certain conclusions; conjecture is the best we can hope for.
(Though if it is reasonable given this lack of certainty to disbelieve in a good God, it is also reasonable to believe in one.)
It is true that I have a problem with God's lack of communication. At least, this is something I do not understand and sometimes find quite frustrating. While there are many similarities between this problem and the problem of pain (perhaps the former is a sub-point of the latter), I don't think my exploration of this problem was motivated by God's silence.
I am perplexed, to be sure, but I am no longer angry with God for our non-relationship. I've come to accept things the way they are. I'm rather fond of God (at least, the way I imagine him) and I no longer feel the urge to lash out at him through philosophy or whatever else.
I hope I didn't give the impression of wishing to disprove God's existence through my exploration of this problem. I don't have a relationship with God but I do have a belief in God, and I cherish it enough to care if it's all bullshit.
I challange my own beliefs quite frequently in this blog, and apparently in the past readers have supposed that I was trying to rid myself of these beliefs. In some cases this may be true, but more often it is my dearest beliefs that I challange, in the same way that a father disciplines the son he loves. (I am not sure if you got this impression or not, but we have miscommunicated in the past.)
Nevertheless, I suppose it is true that if I had a relationship with Jesus like a man has with his wife of 35 years, I would have less need to scrutinize my belief in his existence.
It's strange to me that my friends, almost without exception, recommend that I continue (or return to) my pursuit of a relationship with God. I tried that once, for quite some time, and it didn't work. But more than not working, it made me miserable and self centered and angry with God. I would shrug off your recommendation because you didn't know me back then, except that many who did still say what you say. This confuses me to no end.
I'm happy now. I'm functioning better as a person. I'm not a burden to be with. I'm able to care about other people. I don't hate God. Would you (all of you; any of you) have me become miserable, self-absorbed and angry again, merely to achieve something I have every reason to believe is unattainable?
The answer doesn't matter. At the conclusion of this post I said the reason I beleive in both God and suffering is that I cannot do otherwise. Neither can I believe that God will reveal himself to me if I ask. If goaded sufficiently I'm sure I could begin to desire this again (and to be miserable as a result), but I could not believe in it. It would only be a charade. I cannot seek God any longer; if we are to meet, it must be his initiative.
"Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betrothed unto your enemy:
Divorce me, untie or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me."
Post a Comment