Someone from my family was challenged by an atheist/agnostic. She said that she doesn’t believe in God because there is so much injustice when it comes to suffering. That some people seem to enjoy their lives while for others life is full of difficulties, sadness, tragedies and suffering. Sometimes those who even belief in God fit into the second category. She believes that a just and loving God would not let this happen.
This is similar to the problem of evil but it’s a bit different. I know there is a lot of books written on this topic, but I would rather like to come back to her as quickly as possible. I have some ideas, but I’m sure you can explain this much better.
Laudatur Iesus Christus.
It seems that this challenger is correct in her observation, but mistakes its scope, and therefore errs in asserting her conclusion. She is premature in her judgment.
It is true that a just God would not allow injustice. If the challenger were looking back from the end of time on all that ever would be and saw injustice, then she would be correct to conclude that there is no just God. However, making this judgment before everything is over is irrational.
The Church waits for the just God to do justice on the day of His wrath. Christians have always looked forward to the Judgment Day as the time when all injustices would be made right and all who deserve reward will receive their due. (See, Benedict XVI,
Spe Salvi, (2007) 41.) When this happens, the challenger’s argument will lose all validity, since justice will prevail and the unfairness, which is the basis of her argument, will be wiped away, with every tear. (See, Revelation 7:17.)
To understand what she is seeing in the world, the challenger also needs to consider man’s role in justice. Men have dignity and are endowed with certain powers and rights, which it would be unjust to take from them. These include freedom and many powers which can be used to do harm and injustice to others. God cannot stop injustice as time moves forward, because robbing men of their legitimate freedom and power would itself be unjust. Only after such power has been abused, and injustice personally committed, could it justly be removed and then only from the man who had personally committing the offense. Thus man’s freedom and power require the temporal acceptance of injustice, precisely because God is just and will not Himself do injustice.
A just God cannot intervene and unjustly remove man’s legitimate freedom and power. Man is the source of injustice, but precisely because God is just and loving, He must respect the decisions men make, even decisions to abuse their power. God’s justice, therefore, must be reserved for reward and punishment, after each man has had his opportunity to do good or evil and his power has come to an end, with his death or the end of all time.
Note: God Himself suffers injustice from men. The challenger’s slander and blasphemy against God is an example. But, she would feel ill used had her ability to reason been taken from her *before *she ever committed this particular injustice against God. Most likely, she would class such a sudden loss of reason among the “unjust sufferings” that plague the world.
Thus, contrary to how it might seem, the challenger is not making a valid observation and then drawing a reasonable conclusion. Rather she is *asserting *without basis that justice will *never *be done and then *asserting *a godless universe in which this would make sense. Her apparent argument is reduced to a pair of assertions that cannot be justified by any observation she is in a position to make – because time has not ended.
The above analysis does not prove the existence of a just God, but it does show that the challenger’s argument against Him is unfounded.
I hope this is helpful.
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
