Godly Dilemmas, Part I: The problem of suffering

[Verbal Pararhea]

Welcome to the part one of a possibly continuing series of posts about theology and its many problems. I've decided to call this "the problem of suffering" as opposed to "the problem of evil" in order to avoid the "Where do your morals come from then?" gotcha question that theists like Ravi Zacharias ask in response to the latter phrasing of the question.

The problem of suffering is deeply unsettling challenge to the notion of a god that is both all-powerful and all-loving. Indeed, it is one of the most common arguments used by atheists. Though it does nothing to refute the existence of some sort of god, it certainly poses a deep problem for the Platonic ideal god that appears in classical Abrahamic theism, particularly Christianity. Using suffering language, I shall pose the classical Epicurean tetralemma which outlines the problem rather nicely:

1) Is god willing to prevent suffering but unable? Then he is impotent.

2) Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

3) Is he willing and able? Then whence cometh evil?

4) Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?

This argument purports to give an exhaustive list of all possibilities. If, indeed, only these four possibilities exist, then it seems an all-loving, all-powerful god is incompatible with the nature of the observed world. Many theists have attempted to answer this challenge by accepting possibility 3) and trying to explain how suffering still exists. The most well-known and popular defense is the so-called "free will defense."

God wants to prevent all suffering, and he certainly could do so, however, he wants even more for humans to have free will, and with free will necessarily comes the capacity to do evil. We need free will because it's important that we choose to obey god rather than simply obey him out of compulsion. This argument has several problems.

1) Whence cometh natural suffering? Even if we accept this argument, at best, it only explains evils which exist due to human actions. Genocide, war, rape, torture, etc. would be explained away, but what about disease, natural disasters, famines, and the horrific ways that nature is cruel to non-human animals capable of experiencing pain? The only way these can be explained are either as the either the result of blind, uncaring natural forces or as the acts of an angry god. But why would god fill nature with cruelty against non-human animals, cruelty which doesn't even affect us? What need would there be to "punish" wild animals with starvation, disease, parasitism, predation, and other nasty results of living in nature? God necessarily comes off as uncaring, non-existent, or as the kind of individual that tortures animals. None of these is "all-loving."

2) Why is it so important to have free will in the first place? Why is it important that we choose to obey god rather than obey him out of compulsion, especially if you're the sort that also believes in an all-knowing god? Think about this, is there free will in heaven? If the answer is yes, then how can heaven really be a paradise? If all suffering and "evil" results from free will, why isn't heaven just like another earth? If the answer is no, then why does heaven exist, and why would anyone want to go there? If there's no free will in heaven, then is free will really all it's cracked up to be?

3) Borrowing from the previous question, if there's free will in heaven, and heaven remains a paradise, then free will must be compatible with a world that contains no suffering at all. Why then couldn't god simply create that world? He's clearly already created it in the first place (heaven), so why would he need to create non-heaven at all? It just brings about needless suffering.

4) Why did god make it so that our base predilections are toward sin? Why make humans be naturally lustful if lust is to be a sin? Why make humans naturally curious and place a piece of fruit in an easily accessible area if you didn't want them to eat it? Why are some people born sociopaths or psychopaths? It is certainly possible for there to be beings that have no innate desire to sin who still choose to sin nonetheless. Why didn't god create beings like that? Why did god create humans that have innate drives to do things he hates? Why not create beings that are immune to temptation and only sin if they make a conscious choice to do so? Such beings clearly would have even more free will than humans, and if free will is so great, god should have created them instead.

5) Does free will even exist in the first place? If so, what is it? What is a coherent definition for free will, and how do we know that humans possess it?

What do you think of the problem of suffering/evil? Am I correct in asserting that god must be impotent, malevolent, both, or non-existent, given the proliferate and superfluous suffering which exists in the universe? Comments, questions, additional defenses, etc. are all welcome.

[Amuricio]

What makes you think there is a deity? The nonexistence of a deity would explain everything.

[Mushet]

Why does everybody seem obsessed with an all-powerful or all-loving god and unable to accept anything else as a deity, growing up I was pretty religious but didnt think God was all-powerful.

[Verbal Pararhea]

What makes you think there is a deity?

Who said I believe?

[Verbal Pararhea]

Why does everybody seem obsessed with an all-powerful or all-loving god and unable to accept anything else as a deity, growing up I was pretty religious but didnt think God was all-powerful.

This argument only applies to those who believe in an all-powerful, all-loving, Platonic ideal sort of god.

[Pope Joan]

It's easy to be glib about suffering and pain as long as you are not directly involved. It's an intellectual exercise.
That's how C.S. Lewis wrote, in The Problem of Pain.

Then he watched his wife die of cancer. The book resulting from that experience, A Grief Observed, was not glib. It radiated anguish.

The most honest theological voice on the theme of suffering which I have heard is that of Dorothee Solle.
http://books.google.com/books?id=caxymV ... es&f=false

She rejects a sadistic god an masochistic believers. She agree with Moltmann that God suffers along with the world. As a Marxist and feminist, she sees suffering as occasioning resistance and conflict with the forces which cause suffering. We need to not accept it, but reject it, and those who cause it.

[Verbal Pararhea]

It's easy to be glib about suffering and pain as long as you are not directly involved. It's an intellectual exercise.
That's how C.S. Lewis wrote, in The Problem of Pain.

Then he watched his wife die of cancer. The book resulting from that experience, A Grief Observed, was not glib. It radiated anguish.

The most honest theological voice on the theme of suffering which I have heard is that of Dorothee Solle.
http://books.google.com/books?id=caxymV ... es&f=false

She rejects a sadistic god an masochistic believers. She agree with Moltmann that God suffers along with the world. As a Marxist and feminist, she sees suffering as occasioning resistance and conflict with the forces which cause suffering. We need to not accept it, but reject it, and those who cause it.

But why would such a god continue to allow this to persist? Why not put a stop to it?

[Trotskylvania]

A better treatment of baby's first atheism argument than most OPs. So we'll see where this goes.

For one, I think trying to recast it as "the problem of suffering" is unnecessary and wrongheaded. "Problem of evil" is perfectly instructive of a title, as it encompasses both the more archaic definition of "an evil" as an undesirable thing as well as the more easily recognizable normative judgment.

You have also missed the omniscience angle. God may not be all knowing, and thus refuses to act out of a justifiable concern for unintended consequences.

[With Teeth]

Welcome to the part one of a possibly continuing series of posts about theology and its many problems. I've decided to call this "the problem of suffering" as opposed to "the problem of evil" in order to avoid the "Where do your morals come from then?" gotcha question that theists like Ravi Zacharias ask in response to the latter phrasing of the question.

See, this is where you went wrong; you try to give suffering an amoral connotation, which takes the sting out of any lethality the problem would have in the first place.

[Pope Joan]

It's easy to be glib about suffering and pain as long as you are not directly involved. It's an intellectual exercise.
That's how C.S. Lewis wrote, in The Problem of Pain.

Then he watched his wife die of cancer. The book resulting from that experience, A Grief Observed, was not glib. It radiated anguish.

The most honest theological voice on the theme of suffering which I have heard is that of Dorothee Solle.
http://books.google.com/books?id=caxymV ... es&f=false

She rejects a sadistic god an masochistic believers. She agree with Moltmann that God suffers along with the world. As a Marxist and feminist, she sees suffering as occasioning resistance and conflict with the forces which cause suffering. We need to not accept it, but reject it, and those who cause it.

But why would such a god continue to allow this to persist? Why not put a stop to it?

Excellent question.
Those like Calvin who would give up all other assertions in order to retain the sovereign ominpotence of God have not answer, other than that God could stop it but doesn't want to because it's meant to punish or educate us. In other words, God is a sadist.

Unlike Calvin, I am ready to give up the claims of omnipotence. Then God would want to end suffering but can't, he lacks the power.

[Trotskylvania]

Welcome to the part one of a possibly continuing series of posts about theology and its many problems. I've decided to call this "the problem of suffering" as opposed to "the problem of evil" in order to avoid the "Where do your morals come from then?" gotcha question that theists like Ravi Zacharias ask in response to the latter phrasing of the question.

See, this is where you went wrong; you try to give suffering an amoral connotation, which takes the sting out of any lethality the problem would have in the first place.

Well put.

[Verbal Pararhea]

A better treatment of baby's first atheism argument than most OPs. So we'll see where this goes.

For one, I think trying to recast it as "the problem of suffering" is unnecessary and wrongheaded. "Problem of evil" is perfectly instructive of a title, as it encompasses both the more archaic definition of "an evil" as an undesirable thing as well as the more easily recognizable normative judgment.

You have also missed the omniscience angle. God may not be all knowing, and thus refuses to act out of a justifiable concern for unintended consequences.

I did it in order to avoid the nonsense dodge. I'm well aware of the fact that "Where do you get your morals from?" is a bad question that is easily answered. But it's not the question being explored here. I phrased it differently in order to avoid potential threadjacking. In the future, I may do a Euthyphro post, if that pleases you.

[Verbal Pararhea]

Excellent question.
Those like Calvin who would give up all other assertions in order to retain the sovereign ominpotence of God have not answer, other than that God could stop it but doesn't want to because it's meant to punish or educate us. In other words, God is a sadist.

Unlike Calvin, I am ready to give up the claims of omnipotence. Then God would want to end suffering but can't, he lacks the power.

An interesting answer, certainly not the most common response to the question. Most Christians are very attached to the idea of the omni-everything sort of god. This possibly stems from the influence of Greek philosophy on the foundations of Christianity.

[Avenio]

This possibly stems from the influence of Greek philosophy on the foundations of Christianity.

I wouldn't necessarily pin the idea of omniscience and omnipotence on the Greeks. They saw as many problems with omniscience as we do today - the quote in your OP, though actually a Christian theologian's rather glib summary of Epicurus' philosophy of divinity is proof of that, of a sort.

[Verbal Pararhea]

I wouldn't necessarily pin the idea of omniscience and omnipotence on the Greeks. They saw as many problems with omniscience as we do today - the quote in your OP, though actually a Christian theologian's rather glib summary of Epicurus' philosophy of divinity is proof of that, of a sort.

I didn't say they understood Greek philosophers, just that they copied them in some ways. The omni-everything god is like a bastardization of Platonic idealism.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Is there an assumption made that "all-loving" necessitates a desire to optimize the emotional state of all clients, as can be, for instance, possibly evaluated as a weighted sum of various principle components? By that measure it would seem that my neighborhood liquor store clerk is very much all-loving indeed.

[Avenio]

I wouldn't necessarily pin the idea of omniscience and omnipotence on the Greeks. They saw as many problems with omniscience as we do today - the quote in your OP, though actually a Christian theologian's rather glib summary of Epicurus' philosophy of divinity is proof of that, of a sort.

I didn't say they understood Greek philosophers, just that they copied them in some ways. The omni-everything god is like a bastardization of Platonic idealism.

Not really. The Neoplatonist 'One' is downright abstract; it doesn't even 'exist', in any corporeal or active sense, and is completely and utterly unknowable. It does not act on the universe, and is 'above' the concepts of good and evil. It is the literal source of all being in the universe, and emanates that 'being-ness' outward from itself without diminishment.

The Christians understood a lot of their early theological development through a Neoplatonist lens, but their conception of the One wasn't really one of them.

[Tyriece]

Just throwing this "what if" question out there but, What if God is simply a true neutral being? Meaning that (for whatever reason) he/she/it dose not stop suffering or even makes it happen. Or maybe even it just dose not care.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Clearly God is in contest with other supreme beings in a contest to create the most powerful race of worshippers for the ultimate showdown at the end of times.

Pain and suffering exist as motivators for human kind. We advance by:
1. Seeking ways to avoid pain and suffering for ourselves and our family/friends/allies
2. Seeking ways to inflict pain and suffering on our enemies

Thus we further God's plan for multiversal conquest.

[Ayreonia]

Clearly God is in contest with other supreme beings in a contest to create the most powerful race of worshippers for the ultimate showdown at the end of times.

Pain and suffering exist as motivators for human kind. We advance by:
1. Seeking ways to avoid pain and suffering for ourselves and our family/friends/allies
2. Seeking ways to inflict pain and suffering on our enemies

Thus we further God's plan for multiversal conquest.

I'd be okay with this.

[Kilobugya]

It's very simple. Either God isn't omnipotent, or isn't benevolent, or he doesn't exist.

[Ashmoria]

it seems quite obvious that god (the Christian god) doesn't care about suffering. he purposely made an imperfect world full of woe.

what he promises instead Is to help you through it and to provide a perfect life in the next world as long as you do certain things in this life (those things vary from sect to sect).

[Blasveck]

We can certainly say that this whole argument disproves a loving, caring God.

Though it can certainly lend some validity towards, if a God exists, a deist god. (IE God doesn't care.)

[Verbal Pararhea]

We can certainly say that this whole argument disproves a loving, caring God.

Though it can certainly lend some validity towards, if a God exists, a deist god. (IE God doesn't care.)

I'm open to the possibility of an indifferent god. Indeed, this god seems much more likely than an actively sadistic god. I'm not even willing to entertain a god who loves us, unless this god is too weak to prevent suffering.

Combining the problem of suffering/evil together with other arguments and dilemmas I will post later, I'm not even willing to entertain an actively sadistic god. The only god I think is even remotely possible is one that either doesn't know we exist, or if it does know, does not care about us, or is highly limited/finite. Those three are the only ones I'm open to at this point. I think all other possibilities can be refuted with fairly airtight reasoning and evidence.

God is either ignorant of our existence, indifferent to it, too weak to save us, or non-existent.

[With Teeth]

Welcome to the part one of a possibly continuing series of posts about theology and its many problems. I've decided to call this "the problem of suffering" as opposed to "the problem of evil" in order to avoid the "Where do your morals come from then?" gotcha question that theists like Ravi Zacharias ask in response to the latter phrasing of the question.

See, this is where you went wrong; you try to give suffering an amoral connotation, which takes the sting out of any lethality the problem would have in the first place.