Why Does God Allow Suffering?

[ricmat]

Here is an excerpt from the book (p416-417) “The Fulfillment of All Desire” by Ralph Martin. He quotes St. Catherine of Sienna who is writing of a vision in which the Father speaks to her (I’ve snipped out a few sentences and paragraphs):

For there is no one in this life, no matter how perfect, who cannot grow to greater perfection. And so that your fruit may grow and be perfect, I prune you by means of trials: disgrace, insults, mockery, abuse, and reproach, with hunger and thirst, by words and actions, as it pleases my goodness to grant to each of you as you are able to endure. For trial is a sign that shows whether the soul’s charity is perfect or imperfect.

…The fire of charity grows in the soul who has compassion for the soul of her abuser. For she grieves more over the offense don’t to me and the harm done to the other more than over her own hurt. This is how those behave who are very perfect, and so they grow…and so forget themselves…and the more they abandon themselves, the more they find me. If they only saw it, there would be no one who would not seek suffering with great solicitude and joy.

snip…

Could I not make it [suffering] otherwise? Yes. Then why does my providence do this? To give them opportunity for merit, to keep them in the self-knowledge whence they draw true humility, to make them compassionate instead of cruel toward their neighbors so that they will sympathize with them in their labors. For those who suffer themselves are far more compassionate to the suffering than those who have not suffered. They grow to greater love.

There are over 400 pages leading up to the quotes above, so they perhaps won’t be as significant as if I had typed in all 400 pages.

The book is available here if you are interested.

.

 

[Binary]

So very simple. The freedom to choose “evil” does not necessarily (as a logical necessity) lead to making that choice - it merely allows that possibility. I have never chosen to actively harm others, even though I thought about it. Does that fact deprive me of the freedom? God could simply decide not to create those who will go “astray” - and since you believe that God can foresee everyone’s actions, he could refrain from creating the “bad ones”. Where is the problem?

I’m glad you’ve never chosen to actively harm someone else. That’s a sign of great character. I certainly couldn’t say that of myself. I remember teasing my sister until she cried when I was a child.

Anyway, sin isn’t restricted to harming others. All of us sin in some way. Given your solution, wouldn’t that mean God would have to refrain from making everyone?

 

[tonyrey]

The answer would be very simple: he could point to all those loving and caring people who do not wish to hurt anyone else, whose behavior would never need God’s intervention. The good solution is always prevention, not later “tinkering” with an ill-conceived and badly executed “creation”.

The “good solution” is absurd for the reason already given…

 

[R_Daneel]

So you are saying that it would be better if you wouldn’t exist… I see.

If that is how you understand what I said, there is nothing else to talk about.

 

[R_Daneel]

It would not be sinful but it could still cause suffering. We are talking why God allows suffering. You said God (if He exists) could have created only those people that would not cause suffering, namely sin.

In my vocabulary suffering and sin are not synonyms.

You contradict yourself when you say that God could create Man with the possibility to sin, but only create those that would not exercise that possibility.

There is no contradiction here.

I do not think you understand the nature of Sin. God did not create Sin. Since God is Good, anything that goes against God is Evil. Sin is going against God. You are using the reasoning that IF all things are possible with God, then why did He not do this, that and the other thing. For me, I just accept (humbly) that I do not have the knowledge of God or the understanding of God, to fully comprehend what the Church calls a mystery. If you think that you can (or should be able to) understand the ways of God, then I am sorry, but you will only be disappointed. I believe in the Holy Word of God in the Bible, as He gave it to us, in His Son Jesus Christ, whom taught His Apostles, and in His Church which He founded. But it is not my eyes that are closed

I can understand what you (and other apologists) say about God. And I see the contradictions there. You guys say that God can create a whole universe ex-nihilo. You say that he can stop the Sun. You say that he can reverse a non-reversible process (death and decay). You say that he can see our future and see what we shall do. And then you say that he cannot act on this knowledge and create only those humans who will conform with his wishes. Come on…

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m glad you’ve never chosen to actively harm someone else. That’s a sign of great character. I certainly couldn’t say that of myself. I remember teasing my sister until she cried when I was a child.

Children are a different ballgame, they cannot be measured by the same yardstick. Yes, I happened to hit my brother exactly 4 times in my life, when he teased me beyond my endurance. Those were not serious hits, and I was sorry that I did them. But I was young at the time.

Anyway, sin isn’t restricted to harming others. All of us sin in some way. Given your solution, wouldn’t that mean God would have to refrain from making everyone?

The highlighted text is just an assumption - contradicted by the Catholic example of Mary. And I reject that assumption. Maybe according to my scenario God would not have created 99.999% of all humans. So what?

 

[R_Daneel]

The “good solution” is absurd for the reason already given…

There was and there is no “reason” given.

 

[chessmane4e5]

God easily could have created a world without suffering, with free will and without sin at all. Or he could have created everyone into heaven - directly. Catholics believe that Mary was fully human, she was created without sin, and she chose not to sin. Therefore, God could have created everyone just like her.

And God must bear the whole responsibility for all the suffering, all the “sins”. When one has the knowledge and has the power to stop suffering, then it is his responsibility to act - provided of course that he wants to be called “loving” and “caring”.

In my vocabulary suffering and sin are not synonyms.

From your earlier post it seemed like you were using them as synonyms. My mistake.

So if they are different, here is the key. It is possible that God could have created only the people who would never “sin”, but by your own words, there could still be suffering.

Maybe I should have said: “actively and knowingly”. If I happened to cause harm accidently and unknowingly (out of ignorance) - that would not be sinful, would it?

But it is clear that you are here to simply try and disprove the existence of God by finding a contradiction. I have already stated that to our human minds, we are bound to find things that do not make sense. We are finite, and God is infinite.

For example, we are 3-dimensional beings living in what we think is a 3-dimensional world. For all we know (and string theorists claim) there are more dimensions. How are we to know? Let’s think about it.

We, as 3D people can look at a 2D object with Length and Width and “see” the “entire” thing (I do not mean if it is 100 miles long or some such non-sense). I mean we can look at it, and see everything. We do not need to turn it around or over.

Yet when we, as 3D people, hold a 3D object, we can only see part of it. We need to walk around the object or turn it over to “see” the “entire” object. Are you with me so far?

Using this Logic, a 4D being would be able to look at a 3D object, and “see” the “entire” thing. This amazes me, and I can not fully comprehend it.

So to sum up, we are Humans (finite) trying to make sense of what God (infinite) has created. Should we continue to try and understand His will? Yes. Will we ever fully comprehend it? No. Can we find “contradictions”? Yes, because we do not fully understand.

Peace be with you as you struggle with your belief in God.

 

[hatsoff]

But it is clear that you are here to simply try and disprove the existence of God by finding a contradiction. I have already stated that to our human minds, we are bound to find things that do not make sense. We are finite, and God is infinite.

It doesn’t sound like he’s trying to disprove God, but only cast doubt on one particular brand of theology. He’s doing a fairly good job of it, too. So far, he’s pointed out some of the trouble with using free will to explain suffering. So now you say that while it sure may look like a problem, that’s okay because God can understand it better than us, and therefore we should trust him.

The problem of evil, as it is called, never played a role in my own loss of faith. I would be content to believe in a God who is either not omnipotent or not omniscient (or not either one), who is just doing the best he can with mankind. I’d also be willing to worship a God who is not morally perfect. If only I could find sufficient evidence for the existence of any god at all!

 

[chessmane4e5]

The problem of evil, as it is called, never played a role in my own loss of faith. I would be content to believe in a God who is either not omnipotent or not omniscient (or not either one), who is just doing the best he can with mankind. I’d also be willing to worship a God who is not morally perfect. If only I could find sufficient evidence for the existence of any god at all!

Seek and you will find

But seriously, check out the various documented miracles that have occurred. I have just recently learned about what happened at Fatima in 1917, and am excited to read and learn more.

As for real evidence, what did it for me was just thinking about the story of Jesus and his Apostles.

1. Was Jesus Christ God?
2. I say yes, if we can prove He appeared (resurrected) to His Apostles.
3. How do we know He appeared and that the Apostles didn’t just lie?
4. Well, all the Apostles went forth and preached the Gospel of Jesus including His resurrection. They did this to the point of death (except St. John, he was lucky enough to live to a ripe old age).
5. What are the chances that 11 people would agree to perpetuate this “lie” at all?
6. What are the chances that 11 people would perpetuate this “lie” to the point of death?

This is what pushed me off the fence of Agnosticism. I feel blessed that I fell on the Catholic side

 

[ricmat]

It doesn’t sound like he’s trying to disprove God, but only cast doubt on one particular brand of theology. He’s doing a fairly good job of it, too. So far, he’s pointed out some of the trouble with using free will to explain suffering. So now you say that while it sure may look like a problem, that’s okay because God can understand it better than us, and therefore we should trust him.

See the quote in my post #21 above. Yes, we should trust God. But even then, God gives his reasons for suffering to Catherine of Sienna (and other saints who say much the same thing).

The problem of evil, as it is called, never played a role in my own loss of faith. I would be content to believe in a God who is either not omnipotent or not omniscient (or not either one), who is just doing the best he can with mankind.

It is built into our nature to worship. It is built into our nature to “find” God. If we refuse to actually see/find God, then we DO worship something because we need to worship something. What is it that you worship?

I’d also be willing to worship a God who is not morally perfect.

So you’d worship something that is not perfect. Especially not morally perfect. That’s quite interesting because Adam and Eve’s original sin was partly an attempt to define for themselves what is morally right and what is morally evil. In the absence of God, that’s what we all tend to do. “Without God, anything is permitted.” Or in the more modern vernacular that ricmat has suggested - “I want to do what I want to do.”

So it sounds to me that you want to do what you want to do, and not have anybody perfect around to tell you that it’s wrong.

If only I could find sufficient evidence for the existence of any god at all!

The heavens (and the earth) are shouting the glory of God. What we see that is beautiful and glorious and loving and just, are mere reflections of the creator of these things. You say “if only”. It’s there for you to see.

.

 

[Catholic_Spirit]

R Daneel,

How could God have made the world such that we have free will and there is no suffering?

Suffering is the inevitable result of our choices to sin. If we cannot sin, we don’t have free will.

Please do not blame those who suffer by making them feel that their sinning has caused their suffering. Maybe the sinning is on the part of others inflicting the suffering. Or, maybe this is one of the times when we don’t know and won’t know why some suffer so greatly and others little or not at all. God does not cause suffering. We do not always create our own. It is our role as Catholics to comfort, not condemn.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Please do not blame those who suffer by making them feel that their sinning has caused their suffering. Maybe the sinning is on the part of others inflicting the suffering. Or, maybe this is one of the times when we don’t know and won’t know why some suffer so greatly and others little or not at all. God does not cause suffering. We do not always create our own. It is our role as Catholics to comfort, not condemn.

“Suffering is the inevitable result of our choices to sin. If we cannot sin, we don’t have free will.”

I did not read this to say that all those that suffer is because they have sinned.

I saw it the other way, namely that sin causes people to suffer. Either themselves or others.

You are right though, we should comfort and not condemn people’s souls. But we should condemn actions that are sinful, Christ calls us to do that which IMO is a kind of loving your neighbor. I do not think it is very loving to let someone live in sin, either because they are ignorant of it or because they are denying it. A spade is a spade. The tough part is doing it in a loving manner, in fact, it is impossible, as most people react before they think.

I am sorry to see your religion is “Fallen Catholic”. Might I ask what is troubling you?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Pray for me, I believe I’ve been struggling in my faith lately. I havent been to church in well over a couple of months now. I have an arrogant, prejudice, intollorant atheist friend who takes shots at my religion every time I sit with him. (I only sit with him to sit with my other friend.) Before I became religious, we had NO problems with each other. But every day he says something like, “Remember how God helped out when millions of JEWS died in the holocaust?” But I’m starting to feel he has a point. I mean, why does God allow such suffering? Why does he allow for retarded kids? Why does he allow for Africa to starve to death? I’m certainly not questioning my faith enough to ever leave it, but this does bother me a little bit.

suffering and evil are not the same thing.

1. suffering caused by an evil act like the holocaust, or starvation in africa. people are responsible for that, not G-d.
2. there is no such thing as natural evil. natural events, like earthquakes, tsunamis, etc are random events completely devoid of meaning. unless you believe in magic. only atheists call these things natural evil. the rest of us call them accidents.

 

[CatholicGuy22]

God allows suffering becuase that is a part of human nature. God sometimes test our faith in him with suffering and pain. It is all a part of carrying our cross in life and it is especially hard when we are JESUS lovers becuase the devil is out to get us and makes it even harder for us,

 

[Catholic_Spirit]

“Suffering is the inevitable result of our choices to sin. If we cannot sin, we don’t have free will.”

I did not read this to say that all those that suffer is because they have sinned.

I saw it the other way, namely that sin causes people to suffer. Either themselves or others.

You are right though, we should comfort and not condemn people’s souls. But we should condemn actions that are sinful, Christ calls us to do that which IMO is a kind of loving your neighbor. I do not think it is very loving to let someone live in sin, either because they are ignorant of it or because they are denying it. A spade is a spade. The tough part is doing it in a loving manner, in fact, it is impossible, as most people react before they think.

I am sorry to see your religion is “Fallen Catholic”. Might I ask what is troubling you?

Fallen Catholic is a reference to the Diocese that I live in that rejects female participation in the mass and many other areas and condemns groups that are Catholic in origin and refuses to participate in monitoring / tracking priests who molest children (the ONLY diocese I might add). So, it is not my Catholocism that is in question but my fundamental differences with this Bishop that has rejected me. I guess fallen Catholic might be a misnomer. Rejected Catholic might be a better choice.

 

[tonyrey]

There was and there is no “reason” given.

Then explain how we can all be free to live as we choose and at the same time God **prevents us ** from inflicting suffering on others…

 

[R_Daneel]

Then explain how we can all be free to live as we choose and at the same time God **prevents us ** from inflicting suffering on others…

God does not need to **prevent **me from hurting others. I already **chose **the path not to hurt them. If everyone would be created like me (or even better), there would be no need for later “intervention”. Really, this is not rocket science.

Surely it is obvious that a being whose powers include creating whole universes and performing incredible (literally incredible) miracles, could do a little bit of preventing “tinkering”, and create people with good will, with decency, without malice, even though those people can imagine, contemplate and then freely decide against those actions. Where is the problem?

 

[R_Daneel]

So if they are different, here is the key. It is possible that God could have created only the people who would never “sin”, but by your own words, there could still be suffering.

Well, that is a different problem. The other kind of suffering, like pain from arthiritis, or any kind of degenerative disease can be solved by selecting a different “buliding material”, or making the currently selected material resistant to these diseases. The illnesses caused by microbes can be tackled easily. About 95% of all the microbes are either neutral or beneficial. The remaining 5% simply could be wiped out. Etc… I am not trying to enumerate all the possible problems here, but those are simply technological in nature. Not even “miracles” are needed, just a bit of application of omnipotence, coupled with love and caring.

But it is clear that you are here to simply try and disprove the existence of God by finding a contradiction.

Hatsoff already answered this objection, and I can simply repeat his words. I am not interested in God’s existence or lack of it. I am merely pointing out the inconsistencies of the presented arguments.

So to sum up, we are Humans (finite) trying to make sense of what God (infinite) has created. Should we continue to try and understand His will? Yes. Will we ever fully comprehend it? No. Can we find “contradictions”? Yes, because we do not fully understand.

This is not my point. Humans have a whole set of concepts. Zillions of them. Some of those concepts pertain to a “God”. If those concepts **would **form a logically consistent set, it could be enhanced and examined. However, if those concepts contain logical contradictions - as they clearly do - then there is nothing to investigate - besides pointing out those contradcitions. And that is what I am doing here.

If you allow just one logical contradiction into the axioms of a system, then (by using the “ex falso quodlibet”) you can “prove” anything and its opposite from the logically contradictory axioms. Some of the axioms Christians assert are God’s omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence. The analysis of the “problem of evil” shows internal inconsistencies among these attributes. This cannot be “explained away” by stating that our finite understaning prevents us seeing the “whole picture”.

 

[R_Daneel]

suffering and evil are not the same thing.

That is true.

1. suffering caused by an evil act like the holocaust, or starvation in africa. people are responsible for that, not G-d.

This is not true. God is **ultimately **responsible for everything. God is supposed to have the knowledge (even foreknowledge) of all these events, God is supposed to have the power to do something about them, and yet God did not do anything. You cannot wash God’s responsibility away. There is no difference between **actively committing **and **passively allowing **an event. That distinction is only applicable to lesser beings, who either lack the foreknowledge or lack the power to prevent them.

1. there is no such thing as natural evil. natural events, like earthquakes, tsunamis, etc are random events completely devoid of meaning. unless you believe in magic. only atheists call these things natural evil. the rest of us call them accidents.

The term “natural evil” is widely used as short description by all sorts of philosophers (both theists and atheists). You are right, that phrase is imprecise, and its wide usage is incorrect and regrettable. But the essence behind it is simple: “if one knows about a natural disaster, and has the power to prevent it, then it is morally imperative to prevent it”.