The problem of suffering, also known as the problem of evil, is a longstanding philosophical and theological issue that has puzzled scholars and thinkers for centuries. This problem is rooted in the observation that there is a great deal of pain, suffering, and evil in the world, and this seems to be at odds with the idea of an all-powerful and all-good God. In this essay, I will explore some of the key features of this problem, drawing on the work of various scholars.
One of the most important features of the problem of suffering is the tension between the existence of suffering and the existence of an all-powerful and all-good God. This tension was famously articulated by the philosopher David Hume, who argued that the existence of evil and suffering in the world makes it highly unlikely that there is a God who is both all-powerful and all-good. Hume writes quoting Epicurus:
“Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?” (Hume 1779, p. 151)
Hume’s argument is a powerful challenge to the traditional conception of God, and it highlights the difficulty of reconciling the existence of evil with the belief in an all-powerful and all-good God.
Another important feature of the problem of suffering is the question of why God would allow suffering to exist in the world. This is a difficult question to answer, and there have been many attempts to provide a satisfactory response. One popular response is the free will defense, which argues that God allows suffering in the world because it is a necessary consequence of human free will. According to this view, God created humans with free will because he wanted them to be able to choose to love him freely, and this requires the possibility of choosing not to love him. However, the downside of free will is that it also allows humans to choose to do evil, and this can lead to suffering and pain for themselves and others.
J.L. Mackie, a 20th-century philosopher, formulated what is known as the logical problem of evil. Mackie argued that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of a benevolent, all-powerful God. He wrote, "If God were omnipotent, he would be able to prevent evil; if he were perfectly good, he would wish to do so; and if he were both omnipotent and perfectly good, there would be no evil. But there is evil, therefore there is no such God" (Mackie, 1955, p. 200). Mackie's argument suggests that the existence of evil makes it impossible for the traditional conception of God to be true.
Another key feature of the problem of suffering is the distinction between moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil refers to evil that is caused by the actions of humans, such as murder, theft, and injustice. Natural evil, on the other hand, refers to evil that is caused by natural events, such as earthquakes, floods, and diseases. The existence of both types of evil presents a challenge to the traditional conception of God, as it raises questions about God's goodness, power, and involvement in the world.
In response to the problem of suffering, some scholars have proposed theodicies, or explanations for why God allows evil to exist. One common theodicy is the free will defense, which argues that God gave humans free will, and that the existence of evil is a consequence of this freedom. As Alvin Plantinga writes, "It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. And if He could create such a world, He would have good reason for not doing so" (Plantinga, 1974, p. 166). This theodicy attempts to reconcile the existence of evil with the traditional conception of God by appealing to the value of human freedom.
However, the free will defense has been criticized by some scholars. For example, philosopher John Hick argues that the free will defense does not account for natural evil, which is not caused by human free will (Hick, 1978). Other scholars have proposed alternative theodicies, such as the soul-making theodicy, which suggests that the existence of evil is necessary for human moral and spiritual development (Griffin, 2008).
In conclusion, the problem of suffering is a complex issue that has been explored by many scholars throughout history. The existence of evil and suffering in the world presents a challenge to the traditional conception of God, and scholars have proposed various responses and theodicies to address this challenge.
References
Hume, D. (1779). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
Mackie, J. L. (1955). Evil and omnipotence. Mind, 64(254), 200-212.
Plantinga, A. (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil.
Hick, J. (1978). Evil and the God of Love.
Griffin, D. R. (2008). Theodicy: The Solution to the Problem of Evil or Part of the Problem? In The Oxford Handbook of Theodicy (pp. 3-17). Oxford University Press.
Probably the thorniest problems for a religious believer is that classic atheist objection to the evidence of God based on the existence of evil and suffering; simply put: How can God allow evil and suffering?
Even Thomas Aquinas Even Thomas Aquinas agreed that it was logical to conclude that, ‘There is evil in the world, therefore God does not exist,’ realised that there was a logical problems with the existence of God in the face of the evidence of evil even if he himself did not accept the conclusion.
David Hume summed it up succinctly: if evil exists (and it obviously does) then God cannot (as least not the God of classical theism). The classical argument against the existence of God has been defined by David Hume: ‘Either God cannot destroy evil, or he will not. If he cannot, he is not all-powerful and if he will not, he is not all-loving.’ And if God is not one of these attributes then he is not the God of classical theism and does not exist.
Classical theism holds that God has three attributes, he is : omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. If, then, God is all powerful, all knowing and all good, how can evil exist? It does therefore God cannot! The trouble with the problem of evil and suffering is that it challenges the nature of God and as Swinburne has said a believer must have a satisfactory answer or his faith is ‘less than rational‘. Yet Anthony Flew in his critique, ‘The Death by a thousand qualifications’ scathingly suggests that in qualifying their faith believers diminish God, make him less than he must be, that they remake God’s nature rather than accept that there is a serious problem here. There is a conflict that must be reconciled. Evil does exist so what does this say about God?
Part of the problem lies in the fact that two types of evil exist: moral – manmade evil, including all those barbarous acts perpetrated by man upon others and natural – including all those random acts of devastation, earthquakes, floods, famine which are not (usually) directly caused by man’s actions. A believer needs to try to work out why God does not remove suffering when he could or even should e.g. the 6,000,000 Jews who died in the Holocaust; why this world contains the possibility of death through other causes and why this God is still worthy of worship.
It all seems so unfortunately logical. If God is all powerful he should be able to stop and prevent suffering. He doesn’t – why? If God is all knowing he knows that evil exists – why does he let it? If God is all good he shouldn’t want his creatures to suffer – yet we do – why?
The fact that there are two types of evil, doesn’t seem to help the problem. The evil and suffering that we observe in the world can be listed under two heading’s : those acts of evil which cause suffering which are perpetrated by man’s actions or even inactions – moral evil; and those which appear to be random acts of chance or bad luck like floods, earthquakes, famine and disease which constitute natural evil.
We could look at these both in detail but they both reduce to one basic philosophical problem: God created. If we believe that God created out of nothing then he must have created or at least allowed evil to creep into his design because it couldn’t have come from nowhere, which would imply that some things are self-creating and that God does not control the creation process. This application of logic leads the believer to the obvious question then – Why? If God created and therefore created evil he must have had a purpose which has caused Philosophers much heart and soul searching over the past few thousand years.