The “problem of suffering” is especially a problem in the monotheistic religions. In ancient Greek and Roman religions, with their many, many gods, it wasn’t an intellectual puzzle. If there’s suffering, it’s because some or all of the gods are ticked off and out to get you. There are some bad ones up there as well as good ones. Just the way it is.
But if there’s only one God, why is there suffering? Many people have very simply solutions and they don’t see a problem. But there is a problem. It just has to be explained. Here I continue by showing why it’s a problem and to motivate some thinking by trying to explain how deep thinkers have expressed the problem and tried to address it.
Again, this is excerpted from my book God’s Problem (HarperOne, 2008). Just before this excerpt
The gospel according to “john” seems to point at the fact that the world is under the influence of satan…the blame seems to be on him..so God is basically allowing the bad things to happen for a time…i guess to prove the point that humanity without his sovereignty can’t flourish …
If indeed the kingdom of God will be one day a reality, will that resolve the problem of suffering?
Can a future where the dead ones are resurrected and life reinstated to a blessing state, justify and make up for the horrors witnessed in the human history?
The idea that a perfect, beautiful afterlife will make everything we’ve suffered here worth it never worked for me. Some people experience unspeakable horrors throughout their life. Victims of state violence, torture, abuse (sometimes for decades). Parents who lose children to devastating disease. Grinding poverty. If we all get the same beautiful afterlife, that doesn’t seem fair. I’m a normal human who’s had setbacks and sometimes difficult circumstances. But I haven’t lost a limb or extremity. I haven’t undergone torture. I had two parents who stayed alive, together and in reasonable health throughout my childhood.
It doesn’t seem fair that victims of famine/devastating disease/violence/oppression and I – someone who’s had it relatively easy – should both get the same reward. It seems at least that those who had it much worse here should get some better version of heaven. Of course it’s possible that those of us who’ve suffered enormously will get to heaven right away and those of us who haven’t (like me) will have more suffering in another life or purgatory or whatever, but I really don’t think that solves the problem. Given that the Abrahamic god is sort of a dick, though, that might be His solution.
Why God is not God if He/she/ … is not omnipotent ? That’s circular reasoning on the presumption of the omnipotent (image of ) God in the Holy Books
Suppose a non-omnipotent being exist that is morally and intellectually superior to humankind than you will deny that being the name of God ?
Suppose one does exist! What would be your reasons for thinking so?
My reason for thinking so is that I cannot accept the (image of) God as defined in the Bible. But I accept that the authors of the Holy Books where searching for te One and Only. Sometimes they were close, but most of the time they were even not in the neighborhood especially when they were describing the immanent God.
So I strongly believe that our human reality is part of a Godly reality, who is superior morally, intellectually and informatively and has a its own good Will. But given human reality I doubt that God has more than the power of a fly to intervene in our world.
Me for myself I have more than enough ‘strong evidence’ of thinking so. But I fully agree that is no argument vis a vis somebody else and I doubt ‘God’ wants me to so if He/She/ They … doesn’t do it Him/Her Self.
I get that this is what you think (That our human reality is part of a Godly reality). What I’m not following still is what makes you think so? It sounds like you’re saying that you assume it’s true?
Hope I’m not bothering you, but please take into consideration this except from David Aune, also page 121:
The phrase “those who are accounted worthy to attain that age and the res-
urrection from the dead” can be construed two ways, both dependent on how
καταξιωθέντες is understood. On the one hand, καταξιωθέντες can be consid-
ered as a decision on the part of God in considering the righteous dead worthy
of resurrection. This is perhaps how the Third Evangelist himself understood
the logion, […]
He then continues:
καταξιωθέντες can be
considered as the act of being counted worthy (a passivum divinum) to attain
“that age” and “the resurrection from the dead” at some point in this present life.
One reason for construing the sentence in this way is its striking ambiguity in
comparison with the parallel in Mark 12:25, which is a model of clarity: ὅταν γὰρ
ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῶσιν, “for when they are raised from the dead.” The correctness
of this interpretation is assured by the fact that it is difficult to conceive of an act
of “being counted worthy” as occurring […] subsequent […] death.
Initially he seems to agree that the merit can be awarded after the persons’ death, yet before the resurrection; but later denies it. Am I missing something?
“The righteous dead” always means “the dead who were righteous when they were alive” (comparable to the “wise” who are raised in Daniel 12:1-2)
What me think so is concrete evidence
OK! Some things convince one person and not another. But I’m not sure if concrete evidence for a divine realm is logically possible?
I’m 100 % sure that is logically possible because those things happened to me and if those things would have happened to you, you would be convinced also. So the point is not that I’m logically more flexible than you. I’m not , in fact I’m a very sceptical intelligent older man who lost his faith in the Bible as the word of God or Jesus as the son of God. But the more I’m losing my (catholic) religion the more I believe in the One and Only because of the ‘unnatural’ things happend.
But you avoided to answer my crucial point :
Suppose a non-omnipotent being exist that is morally, intellectually and informatively superior to humankind you deny that being the name of God because it is not the omni-potent God of the Bible ?
No, I’m saying I don’t know why I should think such a being exists.
An example was brought home to me a day ago. I was reading the current issue of Archaeology; the last article in it was “Letter from Poland” about a team excavating the remains of people murdered by Nazi forces in 1939 and again in 1945. These were good people, some Jews, some Christians. All proclaimed “enemies” …
Dr. Ehrman (@BDEhrman),
I’ve recently read an article about Luke 20:34-36 (the “in the after-life, you won’t marry”). Dr. David E. Aune (Notre Dame) comments:
The correctness of this interpretation is assured by the fact that it is difficult to conceive of an act of “being counted worthy” as occurring at any time subsequent to physical death. This logion, then, reflects the view that humanity is currently divided into two classes, the “sons of this age.” who marry, and “those who are counted worthy to attain that age and the resurrection from the dead,” i.e., “sons of God” or “sons of the resurrection,” who do not marry. That is, celibacy is regarded as a prerequisite for resurrection. (p. 121)
He’s referring to the interoperation that Luke, as opposed to the others, says, that only those who starting from this life won’t marry are saved. However, I don’t really get it. I was wondering what’s your take on the text, and if I you see Dr. David’s point. I checked the Greek and the “counted worthy” there is aorist, so I think the Berean Literal Bible translates it best: “But those having been considered worthy […]”
Anyhow, I don’t see why this would imply that Luke says that only those who don’t marry enter Heaven.
Original article:
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/lukes-surprising-and-oft-ignored-views-on-marriage-and-resurrection/
Interesting. I don’t think I agree with his reading (since Jesus elsewhere does not insist on celibacy for entering the kingdom, but ethical behavior toward those in need). But David Aune is a very learned New Testament scholars whose views were/are never to be taken lightly.
Jesus does indeed talk otherwise elsewhere. But I’m talking strictly about this Lukan passage. Do you get his point? I don’t! I mean why does the fact that they are “counted worthy” have to precede their deaths? The text says at an aorist time that they are “counted worthy” and “share” in the resurrection. But then, it says at a present time that they don’t “marry” and neither “die”. That present time must be in the age to come, since obviously they need to first die in order to be “partakers of the resurrection”. Therefore, also the fact that the they don’t marry needs be understood in the future age.
All the Christian authors who talk about a person’s fate in the afterlife (whether resurrection or going to heaven) indicate that it depends on what happens inthis life before death. Being worthy means being one who will be given teh good afterlife. Aune is suggesting that being celibate will make one worthy according to this saying. The statement that the do not die refers to those who enter the afterlife. It’s permanent.
Precisely! If the statement that they do not die refers to those who enter the afterlife, why would not also “neither marry nor are given in marriage” refere to the after-life?
People who are worthy will enter the afterlife. At that point they will not be married. And they will never die.
From the narrow and vastly incomplete knowledge we humans have about the universe and life itself, it’s easy to see how someone an see suffering as a problem as to God’s existence.
A person with more humility will recognize that God’s existence is as probable as not.
The 3rd assertion is true: We observe it. We experience it. It is a given.
Therefore the 1st and 2nd assertions cannot both be true. Either one or both is/are not true.
There is no explanation for suffering. It is what it is. All we can do is try our best to mitigate it.
One difficulty with your formulation of the ‘problem of evil’ may be that you assume God’s omnipotence as a static quality. rather than as an ongoing achievement. So requiring not only that God can master evil, but also that God’s mastery should be both *easy* and entirely past. Whereas through the Hebrew Bible, God’s mastery of evil is hard-fought, costly, risky, ongoing and yet to be fully achieved (e.g at Isaiah 25).
In principle, you might reconcile your three assertions through process theology:
– there is an all-powerul and loving God;
– there is specific suffering;
– humans have free will;
– God has has the capabilty of ending this suffering and has empowered Bart to do so;
– but Bart makes a free-will choice to study the New Testament instead.
Or otherwise, and more attuned to the text of the Hebrew Bible, they may be reconciled liturgically:
– there is an all-powerful and loving God;
– there continues specific suffering;
– God’s apparent inaction in the face of suffering is inexplicable to us;
– so in our liturgy, we reproach God for inaction; while continuing to assert both faith in his ultimate mastery and comittment to participate in the struggle of creation;
– repeat until God acts.
Hi Bart,
Can you please define “love” from a non-anthropomorphic perspective?
Love is a human quality (at least from the most definitions of it), and we don’t know if other high-level animals (like horses) experience love as humans do. Also, we know for sure that many other living organisms (like flies) don’t experience love as humans do.
This is the major logical fallacy in metaphysics: using anthropomorphisms; because the concepts and laws of a closed system (like our universe) might not be valid for a higher system (like the world outside this universe). Based on this, the concepts and laws related to human behavior might not be (as well) valid for the world outside this universe.
Regarding the concept of suffering: there are so many thoughts about it, including the one I have presented in a platinum article here (part 2, a discussion on the issue of suffering, dated 25-Sep-2023), and this is here the original article in my library site:
https://omr-mhmd.yolasite.com/resources/65-Spirit-20.pdf
I’m not sure there is a non-anthropomorphic concept of love.
I agree. I don’t think “love” has a non-anthropomorphic definition. Therefore, “love” shouldn’t be used or considered in any logical analysis related to God; unless it was defined in that particular analysis in a non-anthropomorphic perspective.
My issue with any discussion of “the problem of suffering” is the question “what is suffering?” I may stub my toe, and it may hurt a lot, but is that “suffering?” I may be very anxious about an upcoming job interview, but is that “suffering?”
On the other hand, everyone eventually dies. Is it “real suffering” if millions of people die in a holocaust, famine, or natural disaster but not “real suffering” when an individual dies of natural, age related causes? And is there a different degree of suffering involved with a prolonged, dementia-related death as opposed to sudden heart failure?
It seems to me that any perception of “real suffering” compared to ordinary suffering is always subjective, therefore any belief about when God should be involved to end suffering is also subjective. Don’t get me wrong, I also have a problem with the idea of an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God allowing suffering. I am just curious about where you draw the line between ordinary, stub your toe type of suffering and the type of suffering that may cause someone to lose faith in an all-loving, all-powerful God? I will guarantee that other people will draw different lines.
God is like an artist who has chosen a particular medium and is constrained by the medium in creating. Our universe is finely tuned for life to evolve. But pain, suffering, and death is unavoidable in that process. Otherwise, God would have avoided it.
God is all loving. God is with us in our suffering to comfort and console us. God suffers with us.
And we do have the capability to act on God’s behalf for good. You do not believe in God, Bart, but how many lives have been saved and helped through the charities you support with millions of dollars of contributions? Wow!
Concerning Hebrew scripture ideology — it amounts to wanting to be in control. To assert we can make good things happen and avoid bad things by following God’s statutes and doing what God wants. The human desire for this is obvious. Both in Biblical times and now. But the desire for it does not make it true.
An alternative view is that we do what God wants, that ultimately we come to want what God wants, because of the people we choose to be. And that is a way to find salvation amidst all the chaos, pain, and suffering.
1. God is all powerful.
2. God is all loving.
3. There is suffering.
These three premises do not validly conclude anything like, “4. God does not exist.” There must be some implicit premise added to make it valid. It could be something like, “2.5. An all powerful, all loving God would not allow suffering.” I think that is an awfully hard premise to prove.
It’s not enough to ask why God allows suffering. Yes, having an answer would dismantle the whole argument, but the arguer is claiming something else. The implicit premise 2.5. requires that there is no answer.
That’s right. “God does not exist” is not the logical result of a a syllogism. If you think that a loving God would allow millions of people to be born of birth defects, 300,000 people to be killed in a tsunami, 30,000 in volcanic mudslides, 25,000 die a day of starvation (in an age where a much smaller % of the population is doing so), that 11 million would be killed in a holocaust — if the question is whether an all-loving and all-powerful God wwould allow all this (or cause it), then it’s not a matter of logical proof but of what you think most likely. If you have no problem with an all-powerful all-loving God allowing or causing this, then I think you need to have some reason he woudl (other than just assuming he does exist and therefore does allow/cause it); if you do have a problem with the idea then you need to wrestle with the possibility that there is no such God.
“If you have no problem with an all-powerful all-loving God allowing or causing this, then I think you need to have some reason he woudl (other than just assuming he does exist and therefore does allow/cause it)”
That’s not quite true. The person disagreeing with the conclusion of the logical or probabilistic argument from suffering does not need to have a reason for why God allows suffering. He or she only needs to think it is possible or probable that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing suffering (such that it is consistent with premise 2. that God is all-loving). Having an actual reason knocks the argument down entirely.
My son was born with a birth defect. I do not see why there cannot be (or it is improbable that there is) a morally sufficient reason for this. There could be some person I will meet or event I will attend that could end up becoming a great good. There could be some great thing he does in his life because he was born this way. I cannot tell you the reason but neither can the arguer say there’s none. That’s why I have never found this argument to be strong.
I agree that a person does not need to have a reason for why God would allow suffering. I may have misspoken? What I’m saying is that a person who thinks there is a God should have a reason for thinking so, whether suffering is a problem or not. My view is that what we think and believe should be for reasons, not for no reason. And if we just accept what others tell us, or what we were raised to think, those would be “reasons” of a sort, but they would not be very strong and certainly not compelling reasons.
The solution is simple : there is no such God. But that doesn’t imply that a Godly Reality doesn’t exist and that we have not the duty to search for the will of the newly defined God in that reality
I agree. And then the quesiton is why we shoud think a Godly Reality exists. We can certainly assume so, if we choose. But what would make us think that its existence is more probable than not?