Traditionally, Christianity has believed two key points about God: he is benevolent (well-meaning and wanting the best for us), and he is omnipotent (all-powerful, capable of doing absolutely anything he wants). Of course, we all know there are many more than just two key beliefs about God, but those are the two I want to look more closely at here.
Saying that God is both well-meaning and all-powerful does, however, lead to a problem. This is THE biggie: the problem of suffering. It is an undeniable fact that suffering exists in the world, and most (if not all) of us taste suffering to a greater or lesser extent at some point during our lives. So why does God allow it to happen?
With that in mind, there seem to be several possibilities. You can choose for yourself which if these you think is true. If you can suggest any other possibilities, please feel free to outline them in the comments section.
1. God is both well-meaning and all powerful.
Stop right there. This position makes no sense to me. The existence of suffering disproves this, because why would an all-powerful and loving God who wants the best for us allow us to suffer? Why would such a God allow innocent people to be tortured? Why would he allow genocide and starvation? Why would he allow all kinds of unpleasant disease, natural disasters, and many other causes of suffering? An omnipotent God would be capable of preventing all of these; a benevolent God would want to prevent all of these. So to me, God can't possibly be both.
2. God is well-meaning but not all-powerful.
According to this theory, God loves us and wants the best for us, but for whatever reason he is unable to prevent us experiencing suffering, i.e. he is not all-powerful. A good case for this idea is made by Gregory A. Boyd in his book God At War. This theory provides an explanation for the existence of suffering while still defending the Christian belief in a loving, benevolent God.
3. God is all-powerful but not well-meaning.
According to this viewpoint, God is capable of doing anything he wants, but he does not have our best interests at heart and thus does not want to prevent suffering. This view of a remote, disinterested God is at odds with pretty much all Christian teaching. Basically, it's deism. Either that, or it leads one down the same twisted road as Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church (I'm not dignifying them with a link - if you've never heard of their "church", look it up on Google) with their belief that God actively hates people.
4. God is neither well-meaning nor all-powerful.
I have never heard of anyone who holds to this view, but I had to include it for the sake of completeness. A God like this would be pretty much irrelevant to us, and probably completely unknown too as he would have no interest in humans. Either that or he would be a major thorn in our flesh if he was actively hostile towards us.
5. God does not exist.
This is another possibility that has to be considered. It satisfactorily explains the existence of suffering - if there is no God to prevent it, why shouldn't it exist?
So there we have it: I can see these five possible solutions to the question of why God allows suffering. What do you think? Are any of them right in your opinion?
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Position 1 (God is both well-meaning and all powerful) isn’t a contradiction for me. The issue is one of scope. I believe God means well for us in the context of a very big picture. Preventing every bit of suffering in this world (which I believe he is technically capable of doing) might well work to our harm when viewed from the perspective of eternity. Even among we limited humans, we talk about some parents being “overprotective” and believe that such treatment does harm to the children. It is not hard for me to believe that when viewed from the totality of creation, the things God would need to do to prevent all suffering would actually leave us worse off. Would it mean making us so we couldn’t do bad things to each other? Would it mean that there would never be bad consequences to bad actions? And if you accept that the effect of preventing all suffering might not in fact be “good for us”, then you are reduced to arguing with God as to whether specific instances of suffering could have been removed without the whole tapestry becoming unraveled. Given the disparity in knowledge, wisdom, and perspective between me and God, I am not willing to do that.
BTW – Rob Bell’s latest Nooma video (“Whirlwind”) touches on this.
My questions exactly...and so far I haven't come to a good answer. Someone did say to me once when I was wrestling with this that maybe our perception of well-meaning isn't as big as it should be. I don't know if I buy it.
One other thought I have is that maybe God's presence here on earth since the coming of the Spirit is limited to just that...the spirit within us. It inspires us to care and do good, but also offers peace and wisdom for the situations we are faced with...not the promise of some miraculous protection.
But seriously...I don't really know. Just thinking out loud.
it's this question I've thought about more than probably any other theological/philosophical question. There's no easy answers.
I'm inclined to go with 2, 1 I think is definitely wrong. People usually believe this just because peoplealways have. I suspect people always have believed this simply because it's not really something that is ever seriously questioned or debated.
I'm very much leaning in the direction of #5 lately.
Post a Comment