The “Problem” of Pain…
On February 22, 20/20 aired a special on “medical mysteries.” It covered people born without the ability to feel pain. While to some, this sounds like a blessing, it is a horrible curse.
As a baby, one child teethed on her own fingers to the point that they looked like hamburger meat. She chewed on her tongue like bubble gum… so badly that they had her baby teeth were removed. Then her adult teeth came in too quickly, and she managed to knock all but one of them out of her mouth by the age of 3. This girl (now 6 years old) damaged her cornea so badly by poking herself in the eye, that they sewed her eye shut in a desperate attempt to save her eye.
And then she tore the stitches out of her eye. She didn’t feel a thing.
One of the most talked about topics on the blogosphere is “The Problem of Pain.” Yet after watching this program, I wonder what would happen if pain and suffering were not a problem anymore.
No one refutes that suffering and pain is a part of life in this world. But it is sometimes cited as sufficient reason that a “just and loving God” cannot exist. Yet, it strikes me that if God were not caring, He would not make suffering a “problem.” The very fact that we so revile it could easily be evidence for a God who loves us.
Those who see suffering as evidence against God miss that their very complaint displays proof of God’s compassion.
Sociopaths do not feel remorse or “emotional pain.” Because even murder is not a “problem” for them, it is a perfectly viable tool for accomplishing their needs (indeed, for many it becomes a hobby). What if we had this same lack of a “problem?” Humanity would tear itself apart, to be sure. Our ingrained revulsion is a blessing meant to protect each other.
In response to this, I’ve heard many arguments that this is a “product of evolution” that is necessary for the survival of the community through interdependence. But Tim Keller, in his newest book The Reason for God, points out the difficulty with this assumption:
“People, we believe, ought not to suffer, be excluded, die of hunger or oppression. But the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak – these things are all perfectly natural. On what basis, then, does the atheist judge the natural world to be horribly wrong, unfair, and unjust? … If you are sure that this natural world is unjust and filled with evil, you are assuming the reality of some extra natural (or supernatural) standard by which to make your judgment.”
He then quotes Theologian Alvin Plantinga, who even more starkly illustrates the full implications of the evolutionary claim:
“Could there by any such thing as horrifying wickedness [if there were no God and we just evolved]? I don’t see how. There can be such a thing only if there is a way that rational creatures are supposed to live, obliged to live… A [secular] way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort… and thus no way to say there is such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness (… and not just an illusion of some sort), then you have a powerful… argument [for the reality of God].”
So the next time you consider the reality of suffering and recognize how truly wrong you know it is, think about how you’d consider it if you didn’t think it was a problem. It says in the Bible that God has even greater disgust for suffering that you do, and He has done something about it. He experienced the totality of our suffering through the life and death of Jesus Christ. No matter what we consider to be suffering, it cannot compare to the pain of relational separation from God, which Jesus experienced on our behalf (Matthew 27:45-50). And His resurrection is the proof that He is doing something about it.
We should thank God that He has cared enough to bless us with revulsion, for the alternative is self-destruction.
Posts
Well, said.
So the next time you consider the reality of suffering and recognize how truly wrong you know it is, think about how you’d consider it if you didn’t think it was a problem. It says in the Bible that God has even greater disgust for suffering that you do, and He has done something about it. He experienced the totality of our suffering through the life and death of Jesus Christ. No matter what we consider to be suffering, it cannot compare to the pain of relational separation from God, which Jesus experienced on our behalf (Matthew 27:45-50). And His resurrection is the proof that He is doing something about it.
well, not exactly. The Bible was written by humans who were just as horrified by pain and suffering as we are. It’s not difficult to imagine why they would have invoked a supernatural explanation for it, just as the the ancient South American peoples created supernatural explanations for the Sun, death, and, indeed, pain and suffering.
As well as that, you switch halfway through from talking about actual pain and suffering to revulsion at pain and suffering. I’ve never heard someone complain about the latter, only the former. Atheists argue that against the existence of a loving God because suffering exists, not because we feel disgusted at suffering.
(I should also point out that human disgust at suffering varies wildly over culture and time; whereas almost anyone today would be truly horrified if they witnessed people being forced to kill each other for sport, the ancient Romans presumably had no problem with this - or at least, there were enough of them who were fine with the practice that the games stayed popular. In more recent times, slavery was seen as perfectly acceptable, while today almost anyone in the West would agree that it’s a horrific practice).
The first quote seems to forget that atheists believe our ideas about suffering and tragedy are subjective. We might find it quite tragic and unjust that weak baby gazelle are eaten by lions. The lions, on the other hand, are no doubt absolutely pleased with this arrangement. Anyone who feels empathy, and almost all humans do, will feel for the suffering of other animals in the natural world. I don’t see how this feeling is inconsistent with atheism.
Dee,
Thanks!
Lifelessons,
This was not intended to be a rhetorical argument against atheism or the whole argument of “The problem of pain/suffering.” There are others who are more equipped and eloquent than I. For further reading of that nature, I highly recommend Keller’s newest book (which I cited in the piece).
“The Bible was written by humans who were just as horrified by pain and suffering as we are.”
Agreed. God chose to communicate through the writing of select (subjective) humans. It is a western invention that truth must be 100% objective to be true (which of course, is a subjective opinion). I may be missing what you are trying to say here, so let me know if I haven’t addressed your concern entirely.
“… you switch halfway through…”
You are mostly correct. Again, I was not trying to counter the Atheistic argument. Instead, I tried to bring a related aspect of the argument to the forefront as excellent evidence in favor of the existence of God. And I said “mostly” correct because the opening illustration (the girl who couldn’t feel pain) nicely showed the consequences of injury and suffering not being a problem (i.e. not feeling its effects).
“Atheists argue that against the existence of a loving God because suffering exists, not because we feel disgusted at suffering.”
And I am arguing that a loving God exists because we (the overwhelming majority of humanity) feel disgusted at suffering.
“The first quote seems to forget that atheists believe our ideas about suffering and tragedy are subjective.”
Actually no. And it may not have come across quite as clearly having quoted it from a larger context. Keller argues that the very fact that atheists believe that it is subjective, is an objective claim that begs the question of “by what standard?” In other words, you cannot simultaneously claim that a loving God cannot exist due to the presence of suffering (in itself, an objective standard), and claim that your ideas about suffering are subjective.
Mike recently used this example in a conversation on deConversion: Does the lion/gazelle analogy also apply to a rapist and his victim? If so, then if you must evaluate whether that suffering precludes the existence of God. If it does, then you are operating on some kind of an objective standard, which undermines the entire argument.
The alternative is that the lion and the rapist are equally right in their actions because suffering is subjective… That’s something that I doubt any of us would likely claim, considering our common humanity (empathy).
Actually no. And it may not have come across quite as clearly having quoted it from a larger context. Keller argues that the very fact that atheists believe that it is subjective, is an objective claim that begs the question of “by what standard?” In other words, you cannot simultaneously claim that a loving God cannot exist due to the presence of suffering (in itself, an objective standard), and claim that your ideas about suffering are subjective.
Mike recently used this example in a conversation on deConversion: Does the lion/gazelle analogy also apply to a rapist and his victim? If so, then if you must evaluate whether that suffering precludes the existence of God. If it does, then you are operating on some kind of an objective standard, which undermines the entire argument.
The alternative is that the lion and the rapist are equally right in their actions because suffering is subjective… That’s something that I doubt any of us would likely claim, considering our common humanity (empathy).
Of course, nobody is claiming that. Our emotions and opinions on suffering might be subjective, but by our nature we find a rapists actions reprehensible (most of us).
When atheists say that a loving God wouldn’t let suffering exist, most of them are not saying that this absolutely precludes the existence of God. I could not possibly make an objective claim that ’suffering exists, therefore God definitely doesn’t.’ The ’suffering’ argument (one that I’ve never particularly liked) is an argument against a specific trait that the Christian God supposedly possesses, and nothing more.
Of course, there are all sorts of other alternatives; God could be a monster who enjoys suffering, in which case the existence of suffering would be a point in his favor. There is a general feeling that the more specific one makes a proposed god, the easier it is to refute. When Christians claim that God is loving, atheists ask why suffering exists as a counter-argument. It is not, or at least should not be, used as some sort of objective, absolute statement. If atheists were using it like that, it would be incredibly inconsistent.
Lifelessons,
“When Christians claim that God is loving, atheists ask why suffering exists as a counter-argument”
I think one of the major points Brad is making in this article (that may have gotten lost amid the other aspects it raises) is that the existence of suffering actually is not a counter-argument for a loving God.
Hey Brad,
Good post. I think that the problem with pain is not that there is suffering…it’s just that there is TOO MUCH suffering. In the case you cited, pain is good because it makes this child realize that she is hurting herself. It is the same way in our lives, and I think that God uses pain for good all the time. The problem comes in, though, with pain of a whole ‘nother category; “horrendous suffering.” This is, of course, Elie Weisel’s famous example of the ten-year-old boy hanging in the Nazi gallows taking over a half hour to die. Evil of this magnitude has no redemptive quality. The horrific suffering of the innocent isn’t the ok kind of suffering that teaches us to stay away from chewing off our fingers. The parents of this boy may have been thankful that falling off his bike taught him to be careful, but there’s no way that anyone could see the redeeming value of him being tortured to death because there isn’t any.
But as you pointed out, God has done something about our suffering by becoming incarnate and suffering with us. Jurgen Moltmann points out that the cross of Christ is the murder of an innocent…God’s protest against the very thing that he himself is allowing. Hmm. This is one that’s only going to be resolved at the consummation of all things. Anyway, I like your analogy (and it has occurred to be before, actually), but I just don’t know if you can stretch it to include all the heavy-duty evil in the world. We can’t understand…we can only look to the cross.
Love the Plantinga quote…may I brag that he has long been associated with my current place of study (Calvin College)?
I think one of the major points Brad is making in this article (that may have gotten lost amid the other aspects it raises) is that the existence of suffering actually is not a counter-argument for a loving God.
I don’t particularly think it is either, which is why I usually don’t use it. However, I’m not really willing to let a supposedly loving God ‘off the hook’ when it comes to the issue of suffering either; if a human was in the position to remove all suffering from the world, or at least all particularly needless suffering from the world, we would no doubt call them a monster if they didn’t.
Now, I’d be happy with the situation if God were to actually come down from on high and explain everything (himself, and unambiguously, not through questionably reliable human intermediaries), but obviously that hasn’t happened yet.
Rachel,
Wow. Thank you for that subtle but important distinction! That is absolutely huge, as it allows us to distinguish between sanctified affliction and the horrific suffering you describe. EXCELLENT point.
Lifelessons,
Gonna have to get back to you. I have some material I want to respond with, but am not near it at the moment. I agree that intense suffering does present a problem as you state. However, it does not mean that there isn’t an explanation, or that it is TOO big of a problem.
Anyway, like I said, I want to respond more accurately than I can now, so I will get back to you. Thanks!
Isn’t the problem with sin - or am I being too simplistic?
Brad, very interesting article. I like these blog posts that bring elements from outside the strictly “Christian perspective” and examine them with your faith’s lens. It really drills home the idea that Christianity can be a living, breathing system of belief that exists as part of the world (or, maybe from your perspective, the world exists as part of the system of belief? … hehe).
My biggest struggle with figuring out if a god exists is in the relationship/comparison of god and man. If gods exist, they are either A) like us (that is, we are mortal extensions of their divine will) or B) very much unlike us (being “others” we cannot fathom). For some reason a middle ground there is not something I can really fathom, because then they are less like gods and more like super-evolved humans…which reminds me of an interesting science fiction story I read once…
At any rate, if gods are very much like us, how could they let us suffer so much if they have the ability to stop it? Unless there is a larger thing at work here (like the gods have bosses who are running, I don’t know, a 100-million year-old experiment of which Earth is the crux…), it seems like the gods created us, why? Amusement? To test our souls? To make us into gods after we die? I don’t know. But if these gods are like us, how can they see our mortal suffering and not act more often?
But if the gods are very much UNlike us, then I understand how they may allow us to suffer. If they are nothing like us, our suffering would seem foreign or anathema to them. Like, when a baby cries because it is gassy. To that baby, that is, like, EXTREME pain. And the baby doesn’t speak our language. The baby isn’t just screaming out of instinctive response. That baby is trying to communicate. But, we don’t get it. And if we didn’t know that, for babies, gas is very painful, then we wouldn’t understand its suffering at all. We would just look at it like, “what? What is going on with you?”
I’m often trying to reconcile these two visions of the gods (or maybe just the otherworldly: Jesus, L’Adonai, Shiva, Buddha, Allah, Crow, C’thulu, etc.), and that is what rules my thoughts about pain. If gods are like us, they are unjust, as we are. If gods are unlike us, they are devoid of the tools necessary to empathize with our pain. They may understand we are in it, but they cannot empathize.
In the play Angels in America, God grows tired of the angels after making man. Seeing man sin and explore, He starts to love men more than angels, and He eventually abandons Heaven to explore and live a little. When He leaves, everything starts to fall apart and unravel. The Angels blame all the chaos on man, the situation being that God left because man was so unlike the angels. They ask man to stop moving forward, to stop all progress and stagnate for the sake of the Universe. The selected prophet for man refuses to stop, saying, “The world only spins forward.” The prophet further advises the Angels, “If God comes back, you take Him to court. He can’t understand the suffering he has created, and you should sue Him for everything He has.” In the end of the play, God is seen as a giant, flaming Aleph. The Aleph is being advised by a lawyer, who says, “I think you have a case to get your throne back. I just need to know one thing. Are you truly guilty or not? I don’t care about your morals, here, I just need to know so that I can provide the best possible defense.” There is no answer. This is a representation of God as something totally Other.
Monster comment. Wow. Sorry………..
Michelle,
YES. It is sin, and I don’t think it is too simple, but it brings other problems. The atheistic argument (correct me if I’m wrong all you atheists out there), is that no matter what the cause God, if He is both all-loving and all-powerful, can and should change it. If He chooses not to, he is not all-loving. If he wants to but can’t, he is not all-powerful.
Everyone,
I think there are 2 variables that are historically neglected in this argument. This is not entirely thought out, so I welcome any and all feedback, and is little more than my own attempt at reconciling these issues.
These variables are: Perspective and Love.
Perspective first. Kyle, the Bible talks about a God who is BOTH wholly “other” (nice way of putting that, btw), and also human (in the person of Jesus). This is partly why the doctrine of the Trinity is so important. With it, we have an explanation (albeit one that we will never fully or come close to understanding) on how God can be both transcendent and immanent (He is both “God the Father” who works apart from us and “God the son” who has experienced ALL of the pain we have and will undergo on earth).
Now, because of this we have a God who can empathize infinitely, yet also have the eternal perspective of someone who is wholly other.
Now for Love (btw, I’ll tie these two together in the end). What is love? Is love providing someone everything we want? Is the goal of life to provide ultimate comfort and not suffer at all? Or does suffering have some uses? Children who are raised without any discipline are nightmares as teens, and convicts as adults. They just cannot function in society. Indeed, it is quite loving for a parent to discipline a child. PART of that discipline is allowing children to face the consequences for their actions (insert “The Fall” here).
(here’s where I try to tie them together)
Western comfort and individualism makes it difficult to see how this can reasonably apply to individuals who experience suffering on a ridiculous scale (i.e. genocide in Darfur, victims of sexual abuse, etc.). But God is interested in redeeming the WHOLE body of humanity, not just a bunch of individuals. To save a life, sometimes a cancerous limb must be removed. To build muscle, we must first tear muscle fibers apart, to later heal and strengthen.
Also, sin is, by definition, rebellion from God. Suffering in this world is (all of it) a result of sin. The only way to remove suffering and sin (and thus rebellion) is to remove free will, and MAKE us love (not rebel from) God. What kind of love is it if we don’t have a choice? As hard as it is to hear it, we have to remember that we do not have the eternal perspective of God to know how worth it it really is. We don’t know what eternity is like, so it’s hard for us to see how 100 years of pain and misery is a drop in the bucket compared to millenia of peace and bliss. But God does.
So maybe, He allows suffering BECAUSE He loves us. While this 23-year old suburbanite (please, forgive me!) may not know much about suffering, and it may be easier for me to see, this accounts for the EXPLOSION of Christianity in places where the faith is most persecuted (i.e. China, Africa, Asia).
Bottom Line: “Just because you can’t see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn’t mean there can’t be one. Again, we see lurking within supposedly hard-nosed skepticism an enormous faith in one’s own cognitive faculties. If our minds can’t plumb the depths of the universe for good answers to suffering, well, then, there can’t be any! this is blind faith of a high order.” - Tim Keller
Lifelessons,
The last “Bottom Line” in my previous comment would be how I’d address part of your last comment, but I’d also like to add that God didn’t let Himself off the hook either.
Jesus literally put Himself on the hook of human pain and suffering when he went to the cross. While this does not give us the REASON for pain, it does give us “deep resources for actually facing suffering with hope and courage rather than bitterness and despair.”
I’m so glad you brought in the “wholly other” understanding, although I prefer my spelling “Holy Other”
.
We try so hard to understand God as we understand ourselves and it just doesn’t work. Yet through the suffering Jesus endured, I can begin to relate to God.
Thanks, Brad.
Michelle…
Hahaha… I only wish I could have said it as succinctly! Well done.
As opposed to my socks, which are “holey other.”
Hey Brad,
The “problem of pain” was very much a part of my personal struggle which is causing me to doubt God’s existence. As Rachel describes above, the problem I have is not that pain exists, but the degree of pain which is suffered. Unlike Rachel, I would not use a horrific execution as an example. I can not blame God for what we do to each other. Instead, I look at disease, drought, floods, famine, and other natural disasters which are not the result of human action, and can cause indescribable suffering. This suffering can not be excused as disciplinary or instructive to the individual suffering.
Perhaps the problem is, as you state in #11 above, that God does not love individual humans, but humanity as a whole. Some can suffer and die, if others will be redeemed through it happening. I’m just not sure why we would want a relationship with a God such as this, or if a God thus described has any desire for a relationship with us.
Indeed, Brad, I’m wondering if you realize what sort of God you are arguing the existence of. Your quote from Keller’s book in your original post we’re all commenting on here seems to say that one can only “judge the natural world to be horribly wrong, unfair, and unjust” if one believes in God. In other words, God is only unjust if God exists. This is true, but I’m not sure why you find it helpful.
I’m impressed, Brad, by the attention you pay to the comments you respond to. I simply wonder if you are paying as much attention to what you are saying. So far, you have argued that God is unjust and does not want a relationship with us. This may be true. In fact, I’d say it is the “problem of pain” you seem to think you are arguing against.
Quester,
“Perhaps the problem is, as you state in #11 above, that God does not love individual humans, but humanity as a whole. Some can suffer and die, if others will be redeemed through it happening.”
I get that you want Brad to answer, but I feel led (I know you know what I mean) to share about the years I questioned suffering. Back in 1982 Tony Campolo came to our University for a week of lectures. (Brad, were you even born?) He was just beginning his ministry to Haiti and spoke of the terrible suffering there. Of course, being midwestern Americans most of us had no idea what he was talking about. He was angry with the teaching that it was God’s will - How could a loving God will such a thing? The question haunted me for years, and seriously challenged my faith…a good thing.
Years later I began studying who God is as He describes Himself in scripture vs. the way I was taught to think of Him, all-benevolent and wanting a “happy” plan for my life, the American Protestant version. I had never heard of God’s sovereignty and could not conceive of a God who got to “call the shots” and leave us to live with the results. I knew Him as love and mercy, not just and jealous.
Long story a little shorter… one of my Bible study leaders used the same description of the suffering in Haiti. She talked about the seeming injustice and lack of love from a God who would allow such things. I felt my heart racing wondering where she would go with it, but she explained, “His justice flows through His fingers of love.”
He can’t divorce Himself from any part of His character.
Sometimes nations go against God’s holiness in extremely evil ways, and in His justice He must judge what we cannot see. Haiti has been entrenched in voodoo for centuries - not that we can ever know what is judgment and what is natural disaster (I’m not getting “Falwell” on you), but in His sovereignty He determines when and if judgment needs to come. She went beyond the Haiti example and talked of corrupt nations, including everyone from one time or another, some worse than others, only God knows.
Take the example of His covenant with the Jewish people. When He cut covenant with Abraham, He explained how Abe’s descendants would be slaves in a land for 400 years because “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” He has had a plan from the beginning that will come to completion in His time. He knew how much time the Amorites would need before judgment could justly fall on them. I see His great mercy in holding back His hand, allowing His chosen people to suffer, so another nation would have enough time to what? Come to Him? Only He knows, so I trust Him to determine.
Speaking with a Jewish blogger today I have been brokenhearted about what happened in Jerusalem, he brought me great comfort by reminding me not to despair, God sees all and knows how to take care of all evil. We can leave it in His hands understanding His character.
I know I speak in a “folksy” way - I don’t mean to be too simple, I just am. I don’t know if that is any help, but it was the teaching that caused me to better understand the problem with pain.
That was really long, sorry Brad.
Quester,
“This suffering can not be excused as disciplinary or instructive to the individual suffering.”
Agreed. Theologically, Christianity answers this problem with the Fall. Because Adam was responsible for the earth as its steward, his (and Eve’s) rebellion brought the earth with him. That was his choice. Again, if we did not have some degree of free will, how could our love (or God’s love for us) be genuine?
And yeah, I know that as a pastor-on-indefinite-sabbatical (what would you consider yourself?) this is nothing new to you.
“Perhaps the problem is, as you state in #11 above, that God does not love individual humans, but humanity as a whole.”
At no point in my comment did I make such a claim. The closest I can see is where I state: “But God is interested in redeeming the WHOLE body of humanity, NOT JUST a bunch of individuals.” I do not claim God’s love for the whole of humanity to be to the exclusion of the individual. It is a both/and, not an either/or.
“In other words, God is only unjust if God exists. This is true, but I’m not sure why you find it helpful.”
That is not what I, nor Keller, argue. The quote shows how the common argument against theism defeats itself by it’s own claim. One cannot make a value judgment on suffering without some kind of standard to judge it against. Keller (and I) argues that the very revulsion for suffering is evidence in favor of a higher standard beyond evolutionary or social theory. The quote makes no statement whatsoever about the Christian God specifically, only that the atheistic argument against it stands on shaky ground.
Quester, from what little I know of your story, I know that this topic is something you’ve given a lot of time and thought to. I appreciate your comments and welcome any discussion here. However, unless I am grossly misinterpreting your comment, you are making a borderline straw-man argument. Neither my intent, nor the context of my comments lend towards the kind of God you claim I am espousing.
That said, I’m also on this journey myself, and it is entirely possible there are a few holes in my argument. I don’t claim to have this all figured out, but I disagree where you think those holes are.
Michelle,
In fact, no, I was not born for another two years.
In Re: to your paragraph about Haiti… I won’t disagree with you, but I am VERY VERY wary of making ANY judgment as why anything on a scale like that is happening. Is it possible? *shrugs* sure. But that is a VERY slippery slope (Falwell being the most notorious to fall down it of late).
But yes, it is immensely helpful to hold specific causes in an open hand. It is a very fallacious argument to say that just because we cannot find a reason for something, that it does not exist. That’s putting an awful lot of faith in our cognitive ability.
I agree, Brad, that’s why I boldened the statement.
WE can never know - only God. The leader was not saying the judgment was sure, only that the possibility is there, as it is for every nation.
However, the teaching of God judging nations is a biblical teaching, even when we don’t understand all the reasons.
Michelle, I hope I have never across as judging you as a person. “Folksy” or “simple” answers do not bother me. What bothers me is a God who acts in a way we can not understand, and thus can not learn from. I can not trust a God whose actions seem arbitrary and horrific, simply because He promises that He’s loving and just.
Brad,
“Theologically, Christianity answers this problem with the Fall. Because Adam was responsible for the earth as its steward, his (and Eve’s) rebellion brought the earth with him.”
And then Christ, as the second Adam, defeated sin and death and brought the earth with him. Being born fully human (while being fully divine) allowed him to make a decision of his own free will as Adam did of his.
Yet, the “suffering [which] can not be excused as disciplinary or instructive to the individual suffering” still happens. Why was the first Adam’s choice so much more effective than that of the second Adam (who was also God)? That’s where this argument breaks down for me.
“And yeah, I know that as a pastor-on-indefinite-sabbatical (what would you consider yourself?) this is nothing new to you.”
Don’t worry about it. I’m kind of between labels just now. Quester will do. And I’m not judging your answers on a basis of originality. I’m just asking for what answers you have.
“I do not claim God’s love for the whole of humanity to be to the exclusion of the individual. It is a both/and, not an either/or.”
You did not state the claim clearly, but I could see no other way to read what you did say. When you say, “To save a life, sometimes a cancerous limb must be removed. To build muscle, we must first tear muscle fibers apart, to later heal and strengthen” who are the cancerous limbs or torn fibres if not individual humans who are cut off or torn down for the benefit of what’s left of humanity? Sounds like either/or to me.
“That is not what I, nor Keller, argue. The quote shows how the common argument against theism defeats itself by it’s own claim.”
That is what both of you claim you are arguing, I agree. But look at Keller’s quote:
“If you are sure that this natural world is unjust and filled with evil, you are assuming the reality of some extra natural (or supernatural) standard by which to make your judgment.”
If I want to say that the suffering caused by a drought is unjust, I must believe that the drought is either caused by a supernatural agent or could have been stopped by one. Otherwise a drought is not just or unjust, it just is.
But if the supernatural agent does exist, I can judge the suffering as unjust, and thus judge the agent as unjust as well.
So, God is unjust, only if He exists. Can you see how I reached that conclusion from Keller’s argument?
Now, Plantinga’s argument comes closer to what you say you and Keller are arguing, if you are willing to accept that “A [secular] way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort”. I don’t. But that’s another argument, entirely.
“However, unless I am grossly misinterpreting your comment, you are making a borderline straw-man argument. Neither my intent, nor the context of my comments lend towards the kind of God you claim I am espousing.”
Neither your intent nor the context of your comments, I concede. The context of your quotes (in an article called The “problem” of pain) tells me your intent is to describe another kind of God.
However the content of your comments- your actual arguments- seem to be describing this unjust, indifferent God. I may be interpreting you wrong, but that’s why I’m making these statements here, where you can respond and correct my misunderstanding. I’m willing to believe I’m reading you wrong, but I am not doing it intentionally. I hope you now see where I got the interpretations I did.
Quester,
“Why was the first Adam’s choice so much more effective than that of the second Adam (who was also God)?”
It was not. He’s just not done yet.
As far as the rest, let’s back up a bit…
In Re: to the cancerous limb comment… God judges. He holds all of us who do not know Christ accountable for our actions. Sometimes He disciplines to bring us to Him (as any Father), and sometimes He simply allows us to follow our rebellious hearts to the ultimate conclusion. And sometimes there are innocent people who suffer because of the evil actions of others. Cancer is still the best way to describe it. And God is a surgeon working to remove that cancer before it spreads.
If I was not clear before, God loves and wants to redeem both individuals and the whole of His creation (to include humanity).
In Re: to the Keller quote…
He is just not being that specific. He is making no qualitative claim about anything concerning God. He is merely saying that the atheistic argument fails on its own claim that a “loving” God could allow suffering because they use that very standard to make the claim (i.e. suffering, by it’s very nature, is wrong). In short, because it is a “problem,” points to a higher standard by which they make that qualitative claim. Keller makes no explanation in this quote as to why a loving God could allow suffering (although he does discuss it later), he only points out the logical fallacy used to make the claim.
In short, see Mike’s comment #5.
“However the content of your comments- your actual arguments- seem to be describing this unjust, indifferent God. ”
I make little claim about God’s intent beyond what scripture claims. That which I do is merely the musings of a fellow quester, which are largely incomplete. What I do know is that God knows intimately the suffering we endure because He has endured it Himself, and that (because He did so willingly) He loves us and intends to fix everything. Why or how he does this, I trust that His eternal and transcendent perspective gives Him some insight that my 8-pound lump of flesh between my ears cannot wrap itself around.
Seriously, is it really that big of a problem that we can’t always fit God into a nice, neat little box? I do not even claim that these arguments, or Christianity itself, explains suffering perfectly. My only claim is that it explains it better than any other worldview and that it gives us significant reserves to draw out hope and encouragement instead of nihilistic disillusionment. Scripture’s answers are all truthful, but it does not answer ALL questions, only the ones we REALLY need to know now. Why?
Because the story is yet incomplete.
All right, Brad. I just wanted to alert you to what your arguments actually implied, because I don’t think you’re saying what you think you’re saying. Unless you have any desire to pursue these points exhaustively, I’ll leave you with this.
Quester,
I guess we are just missing each other… My attempt was nothing if not exhaustive. I am trying to answer and dialog about these points to the best of my ability, but I do not think we are going to end in agreement (and there’s nothing wrong with that).
I understand what you think my arguments are actually implying, and sought only to clear up the miscommunication. One more time, here is the point of my post and the follow-up with the comments:
The existence of suffering is not a counter argument for a loving God because –> the very fact that we are revolted by suffering, and have a problem with it exhibits a higher standard/cause then social or evolutionary theory.
This point makes no argument concerning the “why’s” or “how’s” of God’s allowance of suffering, only that the atheistic argument fails on it’s own standards.
I hope that helps.
Brad, there’s a large difference between saying you’re making a point and actually making it, let alone exhausting all other possibilities.
“The existence of suffering is not a counter argument for a loving God because –> the very fact that we are revolted by suffering, and have a problem with it exhibits a higher standard/cause then social or evolutionary theory.”
I don’t see it. In what way does revulsion with suffering exhibit a higher standard/cause then social or evolutionary theory?
Okay, as I have been reading this post and have seen Brad’s reiteration of his main point, I think I have put my finger on what the problem has been.
“The existence of suffering is not a counter argument for a loving God because –> the very fact that we are revolted by suffering, and have a problem with it exhibits a higher standard/cause then social or evolutionary theory.
This appears to be a bait and switch because Brad starts out talking about suffering, and then moves to a different point about people being revolted at it.
The reason Brad began this article with a talk about healthy forms of pain/suffering is that the atheist has no basis by which to say that this type of suffering is better or worse than any other type of suffering. So there is no bait and switch, because the atheist should simply regard all suffering equally.
Mike,
“So there is no bait and switch, because the atheist should simply regard all suffering equally.
An atheist can view suffering as just or unjust if caused by a moral agent, as helpful or unhelpful if not caused by a moral agent, or as excessive or necessary if helpful. One can still use discernment without requiring a super- or extra-natural standard.
“One can still use discernment without requiring a super- or extra-natural standard.”
And what I am trying to communicate is that the very ability to use discernment (to evaluate suffering qualitatively) cannot be explained by evolutionary theory (see Plantingua’s quote). The very fact that we have a problem with suffering (instead of passing it off as survival of the fittest) is excellent evidence of the reality of God (not proof, but evidence).
If you disagree, then what is the basis of your discernment if not a super- or extra-natural standard?
“If you disagree, then what is the basis of your discernment if not a super- or extra-natural standard?”
Empathy and reason.
OK, let’s keep going.
What is the basis for your empathy? Where does it come from? Evolution does not explain it’s presence.
Your reason involves free will (as a process by which we make decisions). If a loving God did not allow suffering, and thus some degree of free will, your reason would be totally moot (or non-existent).
Why doesn’t evolution explain the presence of empathy? Empathy is, at core, a utilization of imagination. Imagination is a trait which can allow one who possesses it to survive in situations where one without it can not.
In what way does reason require free will? If something is true, we can use reason to discern that. We can not decide that something is true, no matter what we discern, and call it reason.
What does the suffering caused by floods, famines, droughts, diseases, or earthquakes have to do with free will or reason? There is suffering that can be said to be the consequences of mortal or moral action. That can be understood as the result of free will. Not all suffering fits under this category, though. God could allow a tenth of the amount of suffering in the world without in any way reducing free will (assuming free will exists).
Brad: you are talking outside of the box for me. I’ve never bought the idea of the trinity as one being. It’s maybe a very LDS way of thinking, but, to me, Jesus has always been the son of God and God something else beyond. The idea of the trinity still works here, but it does not answer the bigger question: what is a god? What is teh Christian God if it is not Jesus or the holy spirit?
LDS church teaches what they refer to as the “Godhead.” Same idea as the trinity, except the three are actually different entities.
I realize just now that this is maybe bringing in a whole different ball of wax. ha.
Quester,
Empathy is also required of a being who loves. If empathy is a basis for your qualitative judgment, it is not proof against a loving God. You may claim that it came about by evolution, and had nothing to do with a loving God, but it is not directly opposed to it. Indeed, it supports it significantly.
Reason is a tool used to make decisions (whether that be decisions of action/behavior or value/judgment). If you take away that which a tool is used for, the tool is useless. Decision making (free will) is necessary for the existence of reason.
“God could allow a tenth of the amount of suffering in the world without in any way reducing free will (assuming free will exists).”
True. But how would you know the difference? How do you know that He hasn’t already done this? You would never know that you live in a world with 1/10 of the suffering if you did not already know 10/10 of the suffering. In which case, we’d probably still be having this conversation, and you’d be wanting only 1/100 of the suffering to be satisfied, but you’d only see it as 1/10.
Kyle…
*deep breath*
That’s interesting. I am not very familiar with LDS theology, but I can say that what you describe is one of the huge reasons why many Christians do not consider LDS a Christian denomination (you may have noticed some of this rhetoric during the republican primaries). How you describe it gives one of two options: either Jesus is not God (definitely not Christian according to the New Testament), or there is more than one God (which contradicts the Old Testament, thus also making it not Christian).
“what is a god? What is the Christian God if it is not Jesus or the holy spirit?”
I’ll dig up some scripture references to back this up later if you like, but for now I’ll say that God is:
One God, existing in 3 persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All have existed eternally (even Jesus - John 1:1) and know, love, and glorify each other (side note: this is the model for Christian community, which is supposed to reflect this image).
There is one God, not three. Yet the three persons are also distinct from each other. How does this work? I have no idea. One of our profs told us he’d write a check for $5,000 if we could come up with an analogy that describes the Trinity and reconciles the apparent problem that God can “one” yet also “three” persons. His offer is yet unclaimed.
Mike would be able to explain the cultural and philosophical context of the middle east, and why this wasn’t a problem for them (really, it is only a problem for western reason and philosophy). It’s actually really interesting…
Is that a good start?
I would recommend my video Are You A Jew. It doesnt address the question specifically, but it does hit on some of the underlying issues in the discussion of the Trinity.
Mike, where would I find the video you mentioned?
You may claim that it came about by evolution, and had nothing to do with a loving God, but it is not directly opposed to it. Indeed, it supports it significantly.
What does empathy have to do with God? I can empathize with you because I can look at the emotions I have felt in the situations I have been in, reason that you are capable of similar emotions and may experience comparable situations, then use my imagination to help me guess what emotions you might feel in which situations.
But we have no idea about what emotions God feels or what situations God faces, and our imagination is a poor substitute for knowledge. We can not empathize with God.
As Christians, we believe that God was fully human in the person of Jesus, and thus can empathize with us. He suffered and knows how we suffer. Because of this, we can no longer excuse God’s actions out of ignorance. If God is cruel, it is with full knowledge of the pain He causes us to suffer. You may choose to trust that God, with that knowledge, has chosen only as much suffering is required for His purposes. I see no reason to trust that those purposes have anything to do with love for us. Indeed, it is God’s ability to empathize which moves the damage caused by an earthquake or flood from divine majesty to unjust torment.
At best, you can argue that because empathy can inspire loving actions, our empathy is evidence that God (who gave us empathy) desires for us to love each other. But empathy causes us to suffer when others suffer and recognize some suffering as excessive beyond our means to discern a redemptive factor within, causing us to suffer all the more. Our empathy does indeed support the concept of a cruel and arbitrary God, more than it does a loving one. I suppose it would count as evidence for a very loving God if we were to posit that God is very weak and has a hard time affecting reality except in the smallest and most inefficient ways. I’m not sure that you want to make that supposition.
Reason is a tool used to make decisions (whether that be decisions of action/behavior or value/judgment). If you take away that which a tool is used for, the tool is useless. Decision making (free will) is necessary for the existence of reason.
I disagree completely. Reason is a tool to determine truth. No amount of free will can cause truth to be other than it is. If you say your decision is between wearing shorts and a t-shirt or a parka and snowpants, and you choose to use your reason to discern which outfit is more appropriate for the weather outside, the conclusion you reach will not be a result of free will. If you, by an act of will, choose to wear the inappropriate outfit, you have chosen to disregard reason. The conclusion reason helped you reach has not changed. Reason has nothing to do with free will.
How do you know that He hasn’t already done this? You would never know that you live in a world with 1/10 of the suffering if you did not already know 10/10 of the suffering. In which case, we’d probably still be having this conversation, and you’d be wanting only 1/100 of the suffering to be satisfied, but you’d only see it as 1/10.
Saying that God could be more cruel and unjust is not a good argument against the claim God could be less cruel and unjust. It also goes nowhere near supporting the argument that God is loving or just, which is the argument I think you wish to make.
If an evil tyrant tried to excuse himself for having 90% of the kingdom tortured to death, we would not accept, “Look at all the tortures I didn’t subject people to!” as an excuse, let alone a reason to consider him loving and just.
There is one God, not three. Yet the three persons are also distinct from each other. How does this work? I have no idea. One of our profs told us he’d write a check for $5,000 if we could come up with an analogy that describes the Trinity and reconciles the apparent problem that God can “one” yet also “three” persons. His offer is yet unclaimed.
Brad, see if your library has Dorothy L. Sayers’ Mind of the Maker. Depending on your prof., it might get you that $5,000.
Oh, and so it doesn’t get lost in the confusion:
Empathy is also required of a being who loves. If empathy is a basis for your qualitative judgment, it is not proof against a loving God. You may claim that it came about by evolution, and had nothing to do with a loving God, but it is not directly opposed to it. Indeed, it supports it significantly.
At the point where you made this comment, I had not yet expressed why empathy was evidence against a loving God. I had simply offered it against your claim that “the atheistic argument fails on it’s own standards.” I hope I have shown you, to your satisfaction, why that is not the case.
Michelle,
You can look in our archives under the YouTube tag and see all my videos. You can also go to YouTube and look up my profile under STLChristian. I couldnt think of a more creative name at the time, so I am stuck with it.
Quester,
Responding point-by-point would probably be as fruitless as it has been so far. So let me respond to two significant ones.
You say, “I see no reason to trust that those purposes have anything to do with love for us.”
Just because the 8 pound lump of flesh between your ears cannot discern the reason “why” does not mean it does not exist. This is a fallacious argument. You are expressing a massive amount of confidence and faith in your own cognitive ability.
“If an evil tyrant tried to excuse himself for having 90% of the kingdom tortured to death, we would not accept, “Look at all the tortures I didn’t subject people to!” as an excuse, let alone a reason to consider him loving and just.”
You assume that God is the cause of all that evil and suffering. A more accurate statement would be, “Look at all the billions of people I have protected from evil and suffering when I didn’t have to.”
Quester, there are quite a few very different fundamental presuppositions we are bringing to this conversation.
For example, you presuppose that you can know the reason, if it exists, for a loving and just God to allow suffering. Thus, when you cannot discern that reason, it must not exist.
Also, you presuppose that suffering is caused by God as opposed to our choice to rebel from Him or “spiritual forces of evil” (Ephesians 6:12). Thus, you see His actions as either intentional neglect or impotent instead of a yet-unfinished redemption.
We can talk about the problem of evil and suffering all day, but we will never see eye-to-eye without a very fundamental change in presuppositions.
Brad,
Responding point-by-point would probably be as fruitless as it has been so far.
I find that attitude unfortunate, but I am a guest in this blog. Have it your way.
For example, you presuppose that you can know the reason, if it exists, for a loving and just God to allow suffering. Thus, when you cannot discern that reason, it must not exist.
I am willing for God to tell me the reason. I am not so proud that I need to figure it out for myself.
You presuppose that God is good and loves you, and the only evidence you seem to have for it is that you presuppose that God is good and loves you. That would count as a circular argument, if one were to credit it as an argument at all.
All we have that we can use to discern anything about God is God’s self-revelation through scripture and creation. Scripture tells us that God is good and loves us, but does not portray God as acting that way. Creation includes horrific suffering which is not discernably the direct result of human choice or action: floods, drought, earthquakes, and volcano eruptions, etc. These are results of how God created the world.
Also, you presuppose that suffering is caused by God as opposed to our choice to rebel from Him or “spiritual forces of evil” (Ephesians 6:12). Thus, you see His actions as either intentional neglect or impotent instead of a yet-unfinished redemption.
If I were to believe that the horrible suffering we undergo is part of an act of ongoing redemption, I agree that this would stop me from seeing God as neglectful and impotent. Instead, I would see God as actively and intentionally evil.
If there are spiritual forces of evil, who created them? Who gave them reign over earth? If suffering is the natural consequence of not choosing God, why doesn’t choosing God stop suffering? Why did the consequences of Adam’s choice hit immediately and affect us all, while the consequences of Jesus’ choice takes multiple millennia to kick in, and only affect us if we choose for them to?
I want to believe in a good and loving God! Why do I have to rip out my eyes, ears and brain in order to do so?
Quester,
“I find that attitude unfortunate, but I am a guest in this blog. Have it your way.”
Yes. It is also unfortunate that my car was totaled in a massive car wreck last week, I have midterms this week, and I’m moving on Saturday. I hope that you’ll forgive me for not putting each of your points at the top of my list of priorities.
“I am willing for God to tell me the reason. I am not so proud that I need to figure it out for myself.”
In Luke 4: 14-30, Jesus taught in his hometown of Nazareth. People who knew Him as a carpenter and son of Joseph demanded that He perform healing and prove that He was the messiah He claimed to be, even though they had heard of all that He had done in the surrounding towns and cities.
In John 20:24-29, Thomas refused to believe that Jesus was alive until he could see it for himself.
Both of these times, someone asked for some kind of “proof” or evidence. One time Jesus refused, and another time He graciously gave what was requested to believe. So what’s the difference?
The crowds at Nazareth received Jesus’ claims with insults, demands, and threats (22b-23). Thomas sought with a hopeful, albeit cautious heart (i.e. “it is too good to be true”).
To be honest, your rhetoric sounds far more like the crowds of Nazareth, “demanding” that God prove Himself to you. The only thing different between your demands and theirs is that they wanted healings, and you want verifiable and undeniable proof of a loving God. You do not sound at all like someone who wants to believe in a loving God yet struggles with doubt, like Thomas.
Does your heart reflect those in the adversarial crowd at Nazareth? Or is it closer to that of a doubting, yet hopeful Thomas? God does not give in to demands.
That was a GREAT post.
A lot of the significance seems to have gotten lost in the comments, but it was nice to see someone finally hit the nail on the head. And it wasn’t me this time!
yeah, and wasn’t one of Jesus’ big things that he would not call himself THE son of God or teh King of the Jews? I’m pretty sure that humility was an important bit.
Yes. It is also unfortunate that my car was totaled in a massive car wreck last week, I have midterms this week, and I’m moving on Saturday. I hope that you’ll forgive me for not putting each of your points at the top of my list of priorities.
You could have said that instead of dismissing conversation with me as “fruitless”. I stand by what I said.
God does not give in to demands.
Well, that explains why prayer doesn’t work more than random chance, but it doesn’t provide any reason to believe there is a God.
Best of luck with your midterms, and I hope no one was hurt in that car accident. Oh, and I was really trying to be helpful in response #40. Get your hands on a copy of the book, flip to page 113 (at least that’s the page in my edition; it’s in the chapter called Pentecost) and go get that $5,000 from your prof.
Quester,
I did not dismiss the conversation with you as fruitless. It has been my experience that when responding point-by-point, the main issue often gets lost in the tangents. Maybe “fruitless” was a poor choice of words, and “less fruitful” would be better. Either way, it was not solely in reference to conversation with you.
“Well, that explains why prayer doesn’t work more than random chance, but it doesn’t provide any reason to believe there is a God.”
I mentioned nothing about prayer, and certainly do not akin it to “demand.” There is something very wrong with one’s heart (a la Luke 4:14-30) if demand is the only thing you can muster up in prayer.
“Get your hands on a copy of the book, flip to page 113 (at least that’s the page in my edition; it’s in the chapter called Pentecost) and go get that $5,000 from your prof.”
I’ll see if I can find it in the library, however, I doubt that my prof is not aware of the argument already. Either way, I’ll definitely check it out.