What is meant by the problem of suffering for religious believers? Examine two solutions to this problem.

The concept of evil and suffering is generally seen as a serious problem for religious believers. Evil and suffering can be seen to pose strong challenges against the existence of a God, more specifically an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. Whilst John Hick describes evil and suffering as “physical pain, mental suffering and moral wickedness”, the problem is widely seen to refer to the existence of both natural evil, such as natural disasters, and moral evil, heartless actions such as murder, along with the suffering that is often a result of these.

Perhaps one of the most significant aspects of the problem of suffering, the issue suggests that only two of the three features of the God of classical theism can be possible. If God is omniscient, he is all knowing and is knowledgeable of the suffering that exists. If God is omnipotent, then he must have the power to stop this suffering, and if he is an omnibenevolent, all-loving God, he must wish to stop this suffering. The existence of suffering suggests that God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent and still be omnibenevolent in agreement. As David Hume describes, God must be either malevolent or powerless for the other two features to remain applicable.

Aquinas also argued this case, but referred to the idea that “the name of God means that He is infinite goodness”, which signifies that a God that did not meet the particulars of the God of classical theism is not viable. However, Aquinas’ argument is based upon the two assumptions that God is infinitely good, and that God’s goodness is the same as human goodness. Many argue that God’s goodness and reasoning is beyond what is known to us and differs from our goodness. This has led to various attempts to resolve the problem of evil and suffering. Whilst the Process theodicy disregards the notion of an omnipotent deity and tries to solve the problem in this way, Monism looks at evil as something that is not real, but merely an illusion from a human perspective. Both of the classical theodicies that are commonly discussed rely on the free-will defense and tend to derive from the idea of evil being a result of human free will. Augustine’s theodicy puts forward that God is good and created a perfect world. A key aspect of the explanation is that it refers to evil as something that is not matter or a substance, but a ‘privation of good’. The theodicy uses the analogy of blindness and how that is a lack of the ability to see, to demonstrate the way in which something may not be an entity in itself but is known due to a lack of something. The theodicy also considers the origin of evil to be due to the abuse of free will – referring to Genesis, it suggests that evil originated as Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan and succeeded in defying God. This also provides an explanation for natural evil, as this first sin is described to have cause a loss of order within nature. Supposedly, after this first sin, the world and the human race were distanced from God, which allowed moral evil to blossom. Augustine attempted to avoid critique by stating that all humans were present “in the loins of Adam”, and this provided explanation for why suffering was placed upon seemingly innocent people. This aspect strengthens the notion of a loving God and justifies his allowance of suffering. The final idea put forward, is that suffering is the most just and merciful thing God can do. This suggests that God has given us suffering as a way to repent and is providing people who have sinned an opportunity to go to heaven as opposed to being sent to hell for punishment.

Irenaeus’ Theodicy originates from St. Irenaeus who believed that humans were not created perfect, but that they required growth in order to reach this perfection, in God’s likeness – genuine human perfection can only be achieved through free will. The theodicy then goes on to explain that this free will is what provides the means for humans to disobey God, which causes suffering. If God were to create a world with no evil, then we would not have free will. The theodicy argues that God values free will over evil. The natural order that was a result of creation means there is a possibility of harm and imperfection was necessary. Another key aspect is the idea that evil is temporary, and that we will all overcome evil and eventually people will be in God’s likeness. The theodicy is considered to be strong due to the way it accepts God as responsible for evil but discusses how it enables us to reach ultimate goodness and perfection and how evil is necessary for this. John Hick proceeded to add to this view – he sees this existence of free will as an enabler for ‘soul making’. He believes that our spiritual growth is a result of our response to evil in the world; therefore actual evil provides opportunity for us to develop qualities such as courage, compassion and honour in God’s likeness. He believed that achieving this goodness was much more genuine than the idea of ready-made perfection created by God. Peter Vardy used love as an analogy for this matter, stating that love that is compelled is not genuine like love that is gradually obtained and grown. He refers to the distance between humans and God as an ‘epistemic distance’ and highlights how this lack of knowledge enables spiritual growth to incorporate elements of religion and faith due to our lack of absolute knowledge. Hick also argued that due to some people not having the opportunity to grow spiritually, the possibility of an afterlife must be considered.

Consider the view that these solutions fail to solve the problem of suffering

There are many criticisms against these theodicies that vary in nature. The Augustinian theodicy receives it’s most significant critique from F. D. E. Schleiermacher, who looked at the error of the theodicy stating that evil can be seen as a result of deprivation and the result of something going wrong with the world. Schleiermacher discussed how when evil is looked at in this manner, it would mean that evil was created itself and out of nothing – which is not logically possible. Similarly, another logical difficulty with the theodicy is the idea that Adam and Eve gave into temptation, and that this first sin is the cause of evil. If it were possible for Adam and Eve to have defied God and given into temptation, they must have known of some evil and therefore evil was known at the time. Evil cannot have been a result of the first sin if it was part of the cause, and some argue that it could have only come from God. Scientifically, the theodicy argues that evil was brought out of an originally perfect world and therefore contradicts evolution – which suggests that the order of the world today derived from chaos. Along with this, it has been proven that is it not biologically possible for all humans to have been present in Adam and therefore God’s decision to punish the human race based on Adam’s choices can no longer be justified. The existence of hell and it’s relevance to the theodicy signify that God must have known of evil, and anticipated the need for punishment. The Irenaean theodicy attracts similar criticism, despite the fact that it appears to agree with evolution and poses a solution to the irrationality of evil being created from nowhere. The theodicy suggests that everyone will go to heaven – which contradicts religious texts that are seen as fundamental for belief in many religions, such as the Bible and the Qur’an. It also seems unjust that people that choose to commit evil actions should be treated to Heaven. A key problem this belief also creates is that people will start to question the reasoning for moral goodness. If an individual is guaranteed going to heaven at the end of their life, they may see no point in trying to live a morally virtuous life.

The free will defence draws attention to the fact that if God is omniscient, he would have anticipated how free will could go wrong in some cases and cause people to behave ‘wrongly’ and as a result be sent to hell. However, if God is omnibenevolent, then as a loving God, he should not have allowed that. The Process theodicy is often criticised for contradicting the bible, and eliminating the God of classical theism whilst Monism is often seen as irrelevant – as disregarding whether it is an illusion or not, evil is enough to make individuals suffer.