The Many ‘Whys’ of Suffering
My friend Monday had recommended I read Bart D. Ehrman’s books as they are a fantastic analytical dive into the makings of Christianity. This is partially pulled from our discussions after I read “God’s Problem” by Bart D. Ehrman. - Sunday
SUNDAY: First off, wow Ehrman’s a great writer. He really went into his own personal history and emotions regarding the subject whilst breaking down the arguments and history of the subject. Which was, basically: why does suffering…exist?
It’s a prickly question. I like how he showed the earlier thoughts on it being sort of punishment related, then redemptive, then the free-will answer to it… none of which are entirely satisfying. It was good seeing all of those ideas deconstructed and shared in the context of the evolution of Christianity/Judaism.
One thing I will call out is the “free will leads to suffering” answer for why suffering exists getting debunked by the existence of natural disasters (free will has no relation to a tornado hitting your city) was eye opening since I had been inclined to the free will answer prior to reading the book.
MONDAY: Yeah, Ehrman is to-the-point, honest but also comprehensive. Very clear, too. An excellent writer.
I think there's two types of explanations of suffering in positive theism in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition:
instrumental and consequential
In instrumentalism, suffering has a higher purpose and leads to a greater good. No evil is meaningless. All ultimately works towards the good. The problem with this is that God, being omnipotent, could get the same result without suffering. He isn't limited by using certain instruments. Therefore, it doesn't really work unless someone can reconcile omnipotence with limitations—a contradiction in definitions.
In consequentialism, suffering is a regrettable result of a greater good, like giving humans "free will". God, in this mythology, wanted morally free beings. And moral freedom implies being able to make the wrong choices. Hence suffering arises. God's omnipotence isn't violated here as he's setting up conditions where suffering may happen as a consequence of another favorable condition (freedom). God desires freedom (viewed in this approach as a good) more than he desires the absence of suffering. The problem here, though, is that it only applies to sufferings that result from free will—as in, sufferings that result from an individual choosing evil. Not all sufferings are like that—natural disasters and diseases, as well as the simple and unavoidable reality of death, are largely not caused by moral choices. These types of suffering remain unexplained in this approach.
There are other approaches within different forms of theism as well.
There's also disasterism, which is present in both Gnosticism and ‘orthodox’ Christianity. Here, there's an initial pristine state of non-suffering—such as the garden of Eden—but a disaster occurs within the state of purity that causes it to fall into evil and suffering. This disaster is also usually attributed to a moral failing. Disasterism is somewhat like consequentialism, but it’s more focused on the degradation of the created environment, or the evil designs of a fallen being such as the Christian myth of Satan. Things are bad because a disaster happened. God will eventually fix them.
The problem with disasterism is that it doesn't explain why God doesn't immediately fix things. Usually the answer given is that he is "testing" people (instrumentalism) or giving people time to repent (consequentialism). It's a more subordinate theory, in that sense — an explanation of how, not why, though people do treat it as a why. The problems inherent in instrumentalism and consequentialism also apply to disasterism.
There's also denialism which states that suffering is actually good, or that suffering is an “illusion”. This would be the philosophical nondual Hindu approach which views God as the source of good and evil, and both good and evil as ultimately good. This approach would state that "suffering isn't even a problem. It's just your perspective that's the problem." Creation is God's hallucination or dream or "play". All evil is really good, from the ultimate perspective.
The problem with denialism is that this amounts to God just not being conventionally "benevolent". If the concept of "good" has no contrast or opposite, then it loses its meaning. "Good" and "evil" are meaningless in this conception, in which case philosophically minded nondualist Hindus shouldn't use the term "good". You can't distinguish it from "indifferent" or "neutral". There’s no significant moral difference between a morally neutral God and a morally neutral universe. As such, there’s no basis for calling God “benevolent.” The term “benevolent” has lost all meaning. Denialism operates just like atheism, only it explains the cosmos by something it doesn’t understand by something else it doesn’t understand. Pure atheism is comfortable with continuing to investigate the matter. Both, however, do away with any true moral conception of the universe.
I would also take issue with the notion of an “ultimate perspective”. Why would an “ultimate perspective” preclude the legitimacy of a “relative perspective” or “limited perspective”? The fact one suffers in a dream doesn’t make the suffering unreal. The whole tactic of denialism is to downplay suffering by changing the words for it — a form of nominalism.
The karmic view of suffering only works on a very limited, local level. You could say someone is paying for past sins — but why does "sin" even exist? Why wouldn't God just create a universe without sin and without karma? What's the point?
If someone says, "Well, suffering leads people back to God, through many different reincarnations” — like a long, winding road, where suffering acts as a whip to keep you on track back to God, or as a form of learning lessons — the question is: why did people leave God in the first place? Or why would God send them into exile, only to return?
If it is said, "well, they become better through suffering—they could not have become so perfect without suffering" — again, God's omnipotence is denied, because an omnipotent God could reach the same perfection without suffering, in theory. If he is limited to by the instruments he uses, "omnipotence" is not part of his qualities.
The problem doesn't arise when one conceives of a God of limited power, but almost no one wants to do that.
SUNDAY: Excellent breakdown!
I would say that denialism is effectively my preferred rationale, because I would believe a true creator would have created the idea of good and evil, so to ascribe them as either is making them too weak. I wouldn’t call suffering good, but it is existence and creators are of existence.
The other rationales make very little sense to me–however, I would counter that God/True Creator doesn’t have to do things even though they can. We don’t always do the best/most we can in actuality, we do less or differently for aesthetics. Maybe how things are what they want, what is ‘best’ is not important. After all, the best is of them (the Creator) anyway.
An omnipotent God is effectively an ‘Eldritch Abomination’ of sorts. They are incomprehensible to us. The reality they’ve constructed has rules and ideas to it, but their reasoning for it cannot be comprehended.
Regardless, at the end of it all, God or not, existence is basically all on a universal whim. Either the stunning chances to lead to intelligent life that has a morality complex or an entity that exists that created the notions that we revolve around. There’ll be a point to a point…but not in perception of it all. We have to pick the point where we stop asking ‘why’. Everyone’s different in that regard.
As for a God of limited power…that would, ironically in a way, be the easiest way to explain it. God cannot fix suffering or remove ‘evil’ entirely. But then is God really The God, then…?
MONDAY: I was curious what the Zoroastrian approach to evil was, as I hadn't studied it in a long time.
It works like this, according to what I read:
God and the "Devil" (Ahriman) are co-eternal. God is wholly good and the Devil is wholly evil. Their spheres are also eternally separate. God is only omnipotent in the sphere of the good. He cannot mix with evil, so does not affect it. Evil, similarly, cannot mix with good and cannot affect it.
Humans are here to ally with God and good and bring the fight to evil. Eventually, evil will be annihilated. The purpose of life is to aid that ultimate goal.
Zoroastrianism is apparently where Christianity gets about half of its theology, albeit in a Judaized form which tries to retain God's full omnipotence.
Thus Zoroastrian basically answers the question by denying true omnipotence to God.
SUNDAY: Which cannot be the answer for traditional Christianity, even though it’s very neat and tidy. There is One God, and he is the God of everything… Although that’s simple, it raises many questions on the nature of our existence.
And so you need to subscribe to some belief of why suffering exists. Or just ignore the issue to some degree.
Which rationale for ‘why’ do you find most convincing? What do you think the ‘why’ of suffering is? Is there?