What About Suffering?
The Story So Far…
So far, we’ve presented 4 arguments which together, make
for a powerful argument for belief in God.
- 2 cosmological arguments
- the design argument
- the moral argument
What then does the unbeliever have to offer by way of
arguments against God’s existence?
Typically it will be “there isn’t any evidence for God”
No Evidence for God’s Existence?
If this is the claim, we can offer a number or arguments in
response and if challenged, will have the opportunity to
present them.
Don’t be surprised though if the claim just gets repeated
which allows you the chance to ask which premises of any of
the arguments they reject and why.
Pays to have the outline of each memorised.
An Emotional Response?
As you work through the objections to the arguments, you
may find the reason they are rejected is not an intellectual
one but more an emotional one.
This is often seen through the problem of suffering.
More on that later…
Atheism Redefined
More and more today, you will find that atheists alter the
classical definition of atheism to avoid having to provide any
evidence of their claim.
Theism is the proposition that God exists.
Atheism is then the proposition that theism is not true (ie
that God does not exist).
- it’s really that simple…
Atheism Redefined…
But what you’ll hear now is that atheism is simply a lack of
belief in God.
Really? The letter “A” is symmetrical whilst the letter “F” is
asymmetrical.
Does the atheist claim they simply lack the belief in the
symmetry of “F” or do they positively assert it’s asymmetry?
Atheism Redefined…
…but it gets worse for the atheist.
They may claim that you can’t prove a universal negative
like “there is no God” (incorrect as only need to show
something is self-contradictory like a married bachelor)
However, atheism involves a universal negative, so by their
claim, atheism cannot be proved!
The atheist is then believing in a view for which there is and
can be no evidence.
The Argument From Suffering
Not all atheists take the approach described so far and will
provide arguments against God's existence.
The most important of these is the problem of suffering.
Essentially, when you consider the depth and extent of
suffering in the world, be it due to natural disasters or man's
inhumanity to man, it's hard to believe that God exists.
The Argument From Suffering...
I think there would be very few people in the world who have
not directly or indirectly been affected in some way by the
pain and suffering that does exist, so this is a very real and
personal challenge to deal with.
Versions of the Problem of Suffering
There are 2 versions of the problem, with one having 2
versions itself.
Intellectual Problem
- Logical Version
- Evidential Version
Emotional Problem
Versions of the Problem of Suffering...
The intellectual problem concerns whether it's plausible to
think that God and suffering can coexist.
The emotional problem concerns people's dislike of a God
who would permit suffering
It's important to distinguish between the two types of the
problem as it will determine how we attempt to answer.
Intellectual Problem of Suffering
In this scenario, the burden of proof is now on the shoulders
of the atheist, rather than the theist as it's been for the
previous arguments.
As we talked about in the Tactics presentation, make sure the
burden of proof is placed appropriately on the one making
the claim.
They are claiming God and suffering are incompatible so
await their proof.
Intellectual Problem of Suffering
1) The Logical Version
- tries to show that the coexistence of God and suffering is
logically impossible
2) The Evidential Version
- tries to show that the coexistence of God and suffering is
highly improbable.
Need to ask whether they think it's impossible or improbable
Intellectual Problem - Logical Version
- It's Logically Impossible for God and Suffering to Coexist Atheist is basically claiming these two statements are
logically inconsistent:
1) An all-loving, all-powerful God exists
2) Suffering exists
No explicit contradiction, so there must be an implicit one
with some hidden assumptions.
Intellectual Problem - Logical Version...
What might the hidden assumptions be?
3) If God is all-powerful, He can create any world He wants
4) If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering
If God is all-powerful and all-loving, he both can and wants
to create a world without suffering, therefore the world has
no suffering. This contradicts 2) Suffering exists, therefore
God must not exist.
Intellectual Problem - Logical Version...
Both the hidden assumptions must be necessarily true but
are they?
3) God is all-powerful, He can create any world he wants
It's possible that people have free will (Sam Harris' view
notwithstanding). If so, as it's logically impossible to make
someone do something freely, it's not necessarily true that
God can create any world he wants.
Intellectual Problem - Logical Version...
On this count, the argument is pretty much over but what
about the other assumption?
4) If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering
This is difficult to claim to be necessarily true.
God could have many overriding reasons to allow suffering
in order to bring about a greater good
Intellectual Problem - Logical Version...
This seems pretty plausible and we can think of simple
examples in our lives. eg talking your child to the dentist.
Would an all-powerful being be this limited?
Maybe bringing about the greater good directly may not be
possible given free will. eg people freely cooperating to
achieve moral virtues may not be possible.
Intellectual Problem - Logical Version...
On balance then, it may well be the case that a world with
suffering is better overrall than a world without. Because it's
possible, it's enough to knock out 4).
So the atheist is left to shoulder a burden which is far too
heavy. The impossibility of free will and the impossibility of a
world with suffering being better than one without.
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version
- It's Improbable That God Could Have Good Reasons for
Permitting Suffering This is a much more widely used version and as it's claim is
more modest, only improbable, not impossible, the burden
of proof is much lighter.
As so much suffering seems utterly pointless and
unnecessary, it seems highly improbable that God could have
good reasons for permitting it, so God does not exist.
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
So how do we respond to this version?
1) Human Limitations
We recognise much of the suffering looks unjustified and see
neither its point nor necessity.
The success of the atheist's argument depends on whether
we're warranted in inferring that because the suffering looks
unjustified, it is unjustified.
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
So how do we respond to this version?
1) Human Limitations
We recognise much of the suffering looks unjustified and see
neither its point nor necessity.
The success of the atheist's argument depends on whether
we're warranted in inferring that because the suffering looks
unjustified, it is unjustified.
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
Well, we are just not in a position to make that kind of
judgement with any confidence.
We're finite persons, limited in space and time, in
intelligence and insight. We believe God is not and is
providentially in control.
In order to achieve His purposes, God may have to allow a
great deal of suffering along the way.
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
So in our limited framework, suffering may seem pointless
but in God's wider framework, it may be justly permitted we just can't see that wider framework due to our limitations.
Given the dizzying complexity of life, we are simply in no
position at all to judge that God has no good reason for
permitting some instance of suffering to afflict our lives.
This is not an appeal to mystery but rather, and
acknowledgement of our inherent limitations.
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
Atheists though should recognise this problem. Decisive
objections to utilitarianism (ethics of doing whatever brings
the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people) is
that we have no idea of the ultimate outcome of our actions.
Short term good may lead to untold misery, whilst some
actions that look disastrous in the short term may bring
about the greatest good.
We don't have a clue!
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
2) The Full Scope of Evidence
Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God's existence is
probable.
Firstly though, note that probabilities are always relative to
some background information.
So it might pay to ask, God's improbability is improbable
relative to what? What is the background information?
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
If the improbability of existence is just relative to the
suffering, then on it's own, it's no wonder it seems
improbable.
But we can't just look at it compared to suffering. We need to
look at God's existence relative to the full scope of the
evidence.
Does the improbability due to suffering outweigh the
arguments for God's existence?
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
Take a modified Moral Argument from last session:
1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Evil exists.
3) Therefore, objective moral values exist (some things are
evil)
4) Therefore God exists.
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
If the atheist believes that suffering is bad or ought not to be,
then they are making moral judgements that are only
possible if God exists. On Naturalism, they are just
preference claims, nothing objectively right or wrong, good
or bad.
So if it weren't for the evidence on the side of God's
existence, suffering alone would make God's existence
improbable and it's certainly worth conceding this point.
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
3) Suffering Makes More Sense under Christianity Doctrine
Christianity entails doctrines that increase the probability of
the coexistence of God and suffering.
What might some of these doctrines be?
i) The chief purpose of life is not happiness but knowledge of
God.
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
This assumes that God's role is to provide a comfortable
environment for His human pets.
As Christians, this view is false as God's ultimate goal for
humanity is the knowledge of Himself, which alone can bring
eternal happiness to people.
Suffering provides an occasion for deeper dependency and
trust in God, either on the part of the suffer or those around
them.
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
Do we respond in anger and bitterness or do we turn to Him
in faith for strength to continue?
It may well be the case that suffering is part of the means
God uses to draw people freely into His kingdom.
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
ii) Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His
purpose.
Rather than submit to and worship God, people rebel against
God and go their own way.
The terrible human evils in the world are testimony to man's
depravity in his state of spiritual alienation from God and so
as a Christian, we're not surprised by the moral evil in the
world.
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
iii) God's purpose is not restricted to this life but spills over
beyond the grave into eternal life.
God promises eternal life to all who place their trust in Christ
as Saviour and Lord.
When God asks us to bear horrible suffering, it is only with
the prospect of a heavenly joy and recompense that is beyond
all comprehension.
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
Paul, in a passage in 2 Corinthians 6:4-5 shows he
understands that this life is finite and therefore infinitesimal
in comparison with the eternal life we'll spend with God.
The longer we spend in eternity, the more the sufferings of
this life will shrink by comparison toward an infinitesimal
moment.
God may permit suffering so he might overwhelmingly
reward in the afterlife those who suffered in faith.
Intellectual Problem - Evidential Version...
Now, the atheist may respond that we have no reason to
think any of these four Christian doctrines are true.
But they would need to show that the Christian God, from
whom these doctrines derive is improbable relative to the
suffering and therefore needs to show these doctrines are
probably false or that God's existence is still improbable
despite the truth of these doctrines.
Again, make sure they shoulder the burden of proof.
Emotional Problem of Suffering
Despite dealing with the intellectual problem, the real pain
and suffering people may experience or see may not remove
doubt about God's existence.
The response to the person who raises this problem is quite
different.
It is more of a case of sympathetically listening to the person
and just being a friend.
Emotional Problem of Suffering...
I'd certainly be wanting to find out how recent their
pain/suffering is as this too dictates the type of response.
Someone who's just lost a child to cancer or a car accident
will not be wanting to discuss the reasons for and against the
problem of suffering.
If it's been a long time, then there's more room to discuss
what happened and think about the possible views one can
have towards it.
Emotional Problem of Suffering...
One thing that I think is unique in all religions, and correct
me if I'm wrong, is that Christianity is the only religion in
which the creator entered into his/it's creation and suffered
along side of us.
On the cross, Christ endured a suffering beyond all
understanding as he bore the punishment for the sins of the
whole world.