Lets take as a given that God would not allow meaningless suffering. That is to say that if God were to allow suffering then He would only do so for a reason. I think we would both agree with that, yes?
Yes, we do.
*]From this point you proceed to question whether or not the suffering that you can recognize is compatible with the criterion of resulting in some good. Correct?
Almost correct. But “some good” is not enough. The good must compensate and superceed the suffering, and the suffering must be logically necessary to achieve that good. If the same good could be achieved with less suffering, then the good at the end cannot retroactively justify the suffering.
In other words: “
the end can never justify the means”. However the end and means together may of may not form a justifiable sequence. In many posts people asserted the opposite by stating that the “ultimate reward” of being with God will make the suffering in this world insignificant. Wrong argument. (I wonder what is the RCC’s position on this principle? Mere curiousity on my part.)
*]If it is compatible, then our understanding of God (and the omnimax attributes) and evil can logically coexist; and if it is not compatible then you would conclude that our understanding of God and that criterion cannot logically coexist. Correct?
Yes, indeed. Every word is pure gold.
*]The only problem I see in this approach is in assessing the ultimate, absolute good which results from suffering. We cannot truly measure it. We are limited with respect to information and time. If there is an eternal good which results, how would we determine the amount of temporal suffering which justifies it? Mathmatically any eternal good - regardless of how minimal - outweighs and therefore justifies a temporal evil - regardless of how great. Correct?
No, not this time. Please refer to the previous paragraph: “the end cannot justify the means”.
Where you
are correct is that we shall never have absolute, complete information. But that is not a fatal problem.
When you think of the justice system, we are aware that we can never get into the defendant’s mind, and can never assess what his intentions might have been. Still, we make judgment calls, because we must. The built-in self-correction for erroneous judgments is the appeal system. True, we shall never be able to bring the type-1 and type-2 errors to zero at the same time.
Now who is to make the judgment if a suffering was “worth it” or not? The answer is simple: the sufferer himself. No one can speak for him.
If his reward happens here, in this existence, we can ask him, and he can give the answer. I would bet all my earthly possessions against one rotten peanut that not all sufferers would agree that the “reward” was worth the suffering. I accept that many would. But the point is, if there is only
one sufferer who would say that his suffering was not worth it, then that is it. It does not matter if we had omniscience or not.
Now, to posit that the reward will come in the afterlife, there is no way to ask the sufferer. So that is stalemate. But even if we suppose that the sufferer would agree, we still must investigate if the suffering was necessary - in other words
without the suffering he would not have ended up in heaven. And that is the problem in your court. You can never assert that without that particular piece of suffering the person would not have ended in heaven.
You ask for an example. I’ll try one:
Two strangers interact on an internet forum. One is an atheist and the other is a Catholic. Their encounter occurs because of a discussion involving evil in the world - specifically, regarding starving African children. As a result of that conversation - which would not have occured if there were no evil to discuss - the atheist comes to realize the limitation of human knowledge and opens his heart and mind to the possibility of God. This results, ultimately, in his spending eternity in Gods presence, which is the fulfillment of every his every desire: emotional, spiritual, physical and…intellectual.
Excellent example! Now would
all the sufferers agree that their suffering was worth just to have one unknown atheist to change his mind and thus get to heaven? I seriously doubt it!
Who is to judge the relative value? God alone makes the call.
Nope. Only the sufferers themselves. And I think that will be major stumbling block in our conversation. I hope I am mistaken.
