Suffering and evil in religious belief
Peter Manning delves into the topic of suffering and evil and the issues raised for believers
How Indian and Semitic religions respond to the issue of suffering and evil varies greatly. Indian religions, which generally have a more non-dualistic view of the universe and humanity’s place within it, tend not to have the same problem with suffering found in Semitic religious traditions.
Indian religions
Hinduism
Hinduism incorporates suffering and evil into its view of the world through its belief that everything exists within the ultimate reality or God (Brahman). Suffering and evil become, like goodness, part of the diversity of the cosmos united in that which is ultimate. The god Shiva is often portrayed as representing the forces of destruction while the goddess Kali is often associated with war and conflict. Personal suffering is often interpreted as the outworking of bad karma inherited from previous lives in the cycle of rebirth that is Samsara. Thus, suffering and evil is part of the fabric of existence and not a problem for Hindu beliefs in the suprasensory order of being.
Buddhism
In contrast to Hinduism, Buddhism places the experience of suffering at the core of its spiritual doctrines. Buddhism agrees with Hinduism that suffering is often accentuated by the way we become attached to material possessions and status in this life. However, the task of each individual is to recognise that the origin of suffering is craving, and that if craving can be extinguished we will lose the improper focus on ourselves which often comes with such desire. With the loss of self-focus comes a new awareness of the transitory nature of individual existence, and the way in which everything that exists is united in an eternal cycle of change. The removal of the self as a focus for the mind lessens the importance we often attach to suffering, although harmony in existence is sought by Buddhists.
Buddhism places such teaching within a nondualistic framework which assumes the nature of ultimate reality is monistic. Within monism, everything that exists is part of the ultimate reality but that ultimate reality is not to be thought of in theistic terms. Thus, for Buddhism the problem of evil as a challenge to belief in God or the existence of the ultimate reality does not arise.
All boards: Philosophy of religion options
IRENAEUS ARGUES THAT HUMANITY HAS BEEN CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD BUT MUST NOW DEVELOP INTO THE LIKENESS OF GOD.
Semitic religions
Within Semitic religions, which believe in God as the sovereign monotheistic creator of the universe, suffering and the existence of evil are often seen as a great challenge to belief in a God who is supposed to be all knowing, all powerful and all loving. The problem of suffering and evil for Semitic religions has often been stated in the following way: if God knows that there is evil because he is all knowing, and he could prevent such evil because he is all powerful, then why does he allow evil to happen? It is selfevident that evil continues to happen, therefore he either wills it to continue, in which case he is not all loving, or he cannot prevent evil, in which case he is not all powerful. Islam and Christianity respond to the problem of evil in slightly different ways.
Islam
Islam commonly asserts that the existence of evil in the world is down to the activities of Iblis/ Shaytan, a spirit called a jinn which rebelled against its creator Allah. Iblis/Shaytan tempts humans to do wrong and in so doing life becomes a series of tests out of which our choice to do right, to submit our minds to God’s will, encourages spiritual growth. Humans are free to choose how they act and God will judge their actions after this life to decide their eternal fate as being in heaven or hell. The fuller purpose of suffering — why God allows it — may be revealed at the end of days, perhaps in the next life with God in heaven. Until then an element of mystery will continue to surround the existence of suffering and evil.
Christianity
Within Christianity the main types of response to the challenge of suffering and evil for theistic belief are:
■ Augustinian theodicy
■ Irenaean theodicy and the free will defence
■ process theodicy
Augustinian theodicy
Augustine (354–430 CE) argues that evil is a privation, an absence of good and has no power in its own right. Where creation falls short of its created intention to further the glory of God it stands corrupted from its intended nature. For Augustine moral evil entered the world through the rebellion of humanity, represented in the Genesis story by Adam and Eve, against the will of God.
To explain natural suffering caused by such events as earthquakes and disease Augustine turned to the biblical tradition and its story of the rebellion of some of the angelic hosts under the leadership of Satan. As they fell away from God’s will they corrupted the natural order and it became a place of suffering rather than blessing. The often uttered declaration about creation ‘and it was good’ within the first Genesis creation story needed revising in light of the rebellion of beings God had created with the freedom not to choose the paths intended by God — albeit true freedom is seen as resting in obedience to God, while rebellion against this is seen as initiating a descent into bondage, sin and a consequent loss of true freedom.
Within this perspective, the creating act of God can be seen as a risk that went wrong but that will find final salvation in Jesus, who in restoring humanity to fellowship with God will also redeem the created order at the end of days.
Irenaean theodicy and the free will defence
The theodicy, or justification of God, developed by Bishop Irenaeus (c. 130–202 CE) differs in important respects from that of Augustine. Following the Genesis story, Irenaeus argues that humanity has been created in the image of God but must now develop into the likeness of God. This process of moving from immaturity to spiritual maturity is encouraged by the way human beings meet the challenges of life. Through our own free actions we truly become the ‘children of God’. Such a perspective has something in common with the Muslim perspective, which also assumes that suffering often encourages spiritual growth. The movement toward our spiritual destiny, rather than being harmed by the utilisation of free will as in Augustinian theodicy, necessitates the repeated use of free will if we are to become the creatures God would have us be.
Thus God is also defended from the accusation of allowing evil because the responsibility for evil lies in the utilisation of human free will rather than in any determining act of God toward the world. Oxford theologian Richard Swinburne even argues that the existence of evil is a necessary part of a moral creation — for, without at least the potential for the existence of evil, true freedom would not exist. Without true freedom human responsibility for our actions would be diminished. Thus the potentiality of evil allows sentient beings like us to recognise goodness for what it is. Evil encourages the creation of ‘greater goods’ such as the freely given response of humanity to love God and his creation and to seek to apply the virtues of forgiveness and compassion when dealing with the challenges of life.
John Hick modifies the position of Swinburne by suggesting that the world is a place of ‘soul making’ through which God gave to his creation the power to evolve over time toward its ultimate spiritual destiny. Any injustices in this life, or the terrible evils of events like the Holocaust, are part of the chafe of such an evolutionary process. However, such injustices will be healed as a state of harmony is reached in the next life and through the final establishment of a new order as creation moves towards its final fulfilment in the eschatological end of days.
Both the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies present theoretical ways of trying to rationalise the problem of evil in light of traditional Christian beliefs in God. Another approach is that taken by German theologian Jurgen Moltmann in his book The Crucified God (1974), in which he argues that the witness of the crucifixion event is to a God who identifies with human suffering through the incarnation of Jesus. In taking such suffering upon himself God acts in the world in such a way as to both identify with human suffering and also oppose it. Following Christ’s example humanity should also actively oppose suffering and evil wherever it is found. The righting of injustice is not just to be left to the next life but actively pursued in the here and now.
Process theodicy
Other theologians see such problems in trying to reconcile belief in an all powerful, all knowing and all loving God with the existence of suffering and evil that they feel compelled to rework their concept of God. Perhaps especially mindful of the impact of the theory of evolution, with its endless parade of cruelty, process theologians within the Christian tradition see God in panentheistic terms.
Panentheism entails that while God extends beyond the created order, creation is contained within himself. God is therefore involved in a dynamic relationship to that which he has created while also being limited by its nature. For panentheism, God is not all powerful. Such an admission, as process theologian David Griffin affirms in his essay ‘Creation out of chaos and the problem of evil’ (1981), ‘dissolves the problem of evil by denying the doctrine of omnipotence fundamental to it.’ Rather, God acts toward the world as a persuasive voice prompting creation to move toward the fulfilment of its potential rather than coercing it.
The psychology of religious believing
How convincing we find any of the various responses to the problem of suffering and evil within both the Indian and Semitic religious traditions mentioned above will be influenced by the kind of beliefs about the nature of existence we already hold. However, some aspects of psychological thought have provided a further challenge to religious responses to suffering.
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) suggested that religion is ‘wish-fulfilment’ — that faced with a harsh and often unforgiving world, humanity creates, through the medium of religion, a means of appeasing our psychic stress. In making such a suggestion Freud had been influenced by the philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (1804– 72). Feuerbach saw belief in God as a projection of humanity’s desire for justice, happiness and love. Although we may not experience these in this life, belief in God allows one to hope that they will be achieved in the next life — thus allowing this life to remain tolerable, which also provides a powerful motive to continue believing in God. As Feuerbach suggested, ‘What man wishes to be, he makes his God.’ Seen in the light of such psychological thought, the different religious responses are interpreted through an atheistic framework that provides a naturalistic explanation for the existence of religion.
JOHN HICK MODIFIES THE POSITION OF SWINBURNE BY SUGGESTING THAT THE WORLD IS A PLACE OF ‘SOUL MAKING’
It is true to say that humanity, when faced with the problems of life and death, has often found in religion a resource through which meaning, purpose or sanctity can be given to challenges. Yet, that religion or belief in God is resourceful in this way does not mean that there might not be some higher, transcendent truth, existing beyond the functions the beliefs and rituals serve in the here and now. Religion may not, after all, be just a pragmatic affair, or a cultural product, but actually instead connect with underlying realities. Furthermore, when used against religious belief, Feuerbach’s idea that we project into existence what we wish to believe becomes a double-edged sword. For might not Feuerbach, by his own logic, be guilty of projecting his own desire for God not to exist?
The mystery of existence
In his book The Brothers Karamazov, the Russian writer Fydor Dostoyevsky (1821–81) used one of his characters, Ivan Karamazov, to voice a powerful argument against God. Ivan accepts that God exists but rejects having anything to do with God in light of the innocent suffering of children.
Three stories are used, which Dostoyevsky reworked from newspaper reports in nineteenthcentury Russia. Each of the stories portrays terrible suffering and injustice. One, for example, tells of a young boy who is stripped naked and then chased and torn to shreds by the hounds of a local landlord. All this takes place in front of his powerless, watching parents, because on a previous day the young boy had thrown a stone, injuring one of the landlord’s hunting dogs.
Today, memories of the brutality of the Holocaust in the Second World War, or the genocide in Rwanda, or the cruelty now going on in the Sudan, continue to provide support for such a protest atheism. An answer to the suffering of innocents is cried out for, yet in the light of such suffering the conventional answers of religion seem inadequate.
The Book of Job
One of the oldest pieces of literature in the Old Testament is the Book of Job. In it Job is the recipient of an onslaught of continual suffering through which his family and livelihood are gradually stripped from him. His friends, who believe suffering is a punishment from God as a consequence of past sin, beg him to repent and seek the forgiveness of God. Job rejects this path, proclaiming himself innocent of any major wrongdoing. The suffering therefore stands unjustified and unanswered.
Job, like Ivan in The Brothers Karamazov, complains against God, but unlike Ivan refuses to judge God. Instead Job embraces the mystery of suffering and chooses a life that remains faithful to God.
The Book of Job declares humanity cannot second guess the intentions of God for the world. Human knowledge is too partial and limited for that. But such intentions are made manifest through freedom and freely given love rather than brazen acts of divine power (Job 38–40). In the final analysis, the inadequacy of rational arguments to make sense of the actual experience of suffering leaves a fundamental choice between a life lived without God, or one that is lived in the hope of God. Both paths fail to provide suffering with meaning in the here and now. The path trodden by Ivan Karamazov sees suffering as meaningless and therefore much of life as absurd. In contrast the path taken by Job holds out the hope that one day suffering will make sense, or some other good may emerge from it, and that God will restore justice to his creation. As with life generally, there are no easy answers — hence the mystery of existence remains.