If God is the all-good maker of all from nothing, then why is there innocent and cruel suffering? Do you assume that innocents suffer terribly for a divine purpose, in order to defend God or to give them hope?
God is said to be pure love. So love must be seen as the gift of God, and you give it back to him, for he deserves all love as a matter of justice. Love for another is ultimately love for God, for it is loving what God has made. Therefore, love must be both indirectly and directly about God.
Christians say that the love of God and neighbor go together. If you love God, you will love the person he chooses to see as part of himself. To fail to honor God (you cannot really reward him, but you offer him love in return as a matter of principle) by making love about anything else would insult the love he gives them. It would insult them as well, for they need his love and are made of it.
This prioritizes faith in God over people, and that is wrong. You are even using their suffering to justify faith. Faith in spite of the suffering of others is a myth. It is just another way of having faith because of it.
You have to assume God should not be cursed or blamed for suffering. That is the bottom line. It is worse to do that than to assume a child is abused by its mother for some lofty, worthwhile purpose. It is worse than assuming optimistically that the suffering will somehow make the child stronger or better.
Thus, it is up to experience—not Bibles, not God, not Jesus, not philosophy—to tell us if suffering has a good purpose. It is insulting for anything else to even try. This is an atheist position. The atheist view of suffering is: “Let it speak for itself. God and so on can get lost.”
THEORY OR OBSERVATION?
Believers hold that God is the infinite source of love, actively concerned with the welfare and happiness of his creatures. It does not look that way, especially when you remember that those who have a reasonably okay life are a minuscule minority. Those who cope well under any circumstances are an even smaller minority. What usually happens is that people suffer so much and end up at the bottom that the only way is up. That is not coping—and never was.
They are basically saying God tolerates evil, and his good—not just good, but the true good—is the force with real power, not evil.
Is that theoretical—just a theory?
Is it empirical—that is, do you see so much good and see evil turning into good, and reason that the evidence suggests there could be a loving God?
It could be both theoretical and empirical.
Empirical observation can lead to theory: you see the good and form a theory that God explains it.
Theory can lead to empirical observation: you have your theory and look around to see if it is correct.
Which one matters most? What if it could only be one?
If God alone should matter, then the theoretical is the one. Worrying about the empirical denies that God should just be good and just matter. In reality, there is no choice. The theoretical alone really matters if you assume there is a God.
So, to do the decent thing: do the human thing. Make it empirical. Let God be discarded.
THE DEGRADATION OF SUFFERING
If you say there is a God who can take away all evil and suffering but justifiably does not, then you are turning the suffering of others into a theory. Your theory is that suffering will bring about a good that will not happen without it. That is how you can call God good while people scream in agony.
It is easier to condone evil done by another than by yourself, for you know your motives. You do not see their motives. And if you try to interpret them, you are never sure you are correct. You do not see all the influences and circumstances—they may not even see them themselves.
You are far from humble if you think there is a God whose motives you can read. You cannot even read man’s—or your own—half the time.
Are you dealing with the painful realization that others suffer by telling yourself it is part of a plan? Is your motive to relieve your own pain?
Yes—if you are not doing much or enough.
You cannot infer there is a plan because of the evidence. Nobody says it looks like there is a plan.
What is wrong with thinking that something is so bad that good must come? You are asserting there is a plan, but it is not testable. How does anybody know whether you are saying this because it is not testable, or because you think there probably is a plan? You are asking people to trust that you are not being dismissive of others’ suffering. But trust must be earned. “I don’t know if there is a plan, therefore there is,” is hardly inspiring trust—quite the opposite.
If you use God to feel better about what others endure, you will soon do this when people hurt each other too. You will deal with the pain by condoning it, or by saying that, for some mysterious reason, it is right.
WHY IS GOD SO DEPENDENT ON THEORISTS?
Theories about why God is right to let suffering happen—no matter how terrible—are clearly biased. It would be different if there were boundaries: “If God does this, I will curse him and die,” as Job’s wife might have done. Even worse: are these really theories? They are presented as such, but seem driven by feelings. They are just hiding emotions. A person says they think suffering teaches good character, but in reality, they just feel it. Theodicies are really about convincing yourself that suffering in the world is somehow fine. That is deeply insulting.
Religion trying to excuse suffering is scandalous. Instead of devising theories about why God might let the innocent suffer, a religious person should have a supernaturally induced drive to fight evil heroically. Action should solve the problem of evil (if it can be solved), not doctrine. That religion mostly has people who adore God and do not really care about the problem—especially when it is people in faraway places who suffer—and people who preach the theory instead of being the theory: this is evidence that belief in God can produce a lack of empathy and hypocrisy.
We should not believe in God when the belief is tied to such bad fruits. Even if a theory about how God can be forced to tolerate evil had validity, it still insults sufferers if it remains just a theory and you do not become the theory—a soldier against suffering.
BACKGROUND
Even if a religion or individual does not explicitly address the doctrine of God allowing suffering, it is still present in the background. The believer may not articulate it, but is living the theory that evil happens under God's watch. The risk of condoning evil is still there: what if you are simply honoring a God who does not care, or who is spiteful? God knows you have a lazy and callous side so the risk is important.
The questions are so serious that allowing evil to exist in the background is the worst approach.
THE BLUNT RELIGIONISTS
We have raised serious questions about how some religious traditions interpret innocent suffering, including extreme suffering. Often, religious explanations are indirect rather than straightforward, which can obscure the difficulties inherent in their views.
At times, religious thinkers argue that suffering is not inherently evil. They claim that suffering itself is morally neutral, so even if it leads to negative consequences, those consequences are not morally evil in themselves. This distinction between an event being bad and its consequences being bad is important: consequences are indirect, like side effects, rather than a direct moral failing.
However, this raises a question: if suffering is morally neutral, how can it be condemned? Some argue that suffering is a symptom of deeper moral failings, such as sin. But this position risks turning morality into a set of arbitrary rules: if suffering itself is not wrong, what grounds the moral significance of sin?
It appears that the suffering of others may be minimized in the thinking of some believers, partly due to their faith in God. While they may feel shocked by suffering, a closer examination of these theological positions suggests they should reflect even more critically. In moral reasoning, what is merely “good” can sometimes prevent what is truly best, and recognizing this distinction is essential.
FINALLY
In the end, the suffering of others demands our attention, not our theories. To justify or explain it in the name of God risks minimizing real pain and masking inaction. Faith cannot excuse the suffering of innocents; experience, empathy, and human responsibility must guide us. Let suffering speak for itself, and let us act, not theorize.
Do the hypothetical test.
Forget:
- That God has a plan for people's suffering.
- To react and just help
without thinking of God.
You should forget the first. The exercise shows there is an inherent disrespect for suffering in faith.