God is the best explanation for our experience of suffering
You’ve probably heard of the problem of evil. In fact, you’ve no doubt wrestled with it yourself before. Anyone who’s experienced evil has. If there is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, and perfectly good God who created and rules over this world, then why is there so much evil, pain, and suffering in it?
This may be the most powerful and most-used argument against the existence of God. On one level, there are good logical responses to it. I’ve explored the issue myself in previous posts. But the problem of evil is not primarily a logical problem. It’s an emotional problem, an experiential problem.
Human suffering is all around us, and we experience it ourselves, too. We suffer from other people’s malice and cruelty and vengefulness. We suffer from nature in the form of illness, injury, and natural disasters. We suffer when these things happen to us, and we also suffer in a different way when they happen to people we care about. Sometimes we even suffer from nothing but the thoughts in our own minds. Severe suffering seems to make a powerful case against the existence of a loving, benevolent, all-powerful God.
But could it actually be the opposite? Could our experience of suffering actually point us to God? Could suffering actually show us that God does exist?
I think it might, counterintuitive as it may sound. I would call it the “argument from suffering.” This, much like the argument from beauty, is not a purely logical argument. It’s an appeal to theism being a better explanation of our experience and knowledge than atheism. I have never seen this argument presented in the form I’m about to use, so I don’t have any philosophers’ work to base this outline off of. So the strengths and weaknesses of this argument remain to be evaluated.
The argument from suffering
Here’s the argument I want to make:
1) Suffering exists, and is inherently objectively wrong. By “wrong,” I mean it is something wrong with the world. Creatures should not have to suffer. When we experience or witness suffering, we are aware of this.
2) But if God does not exist, objective right and wrong do not exist. There is no way the world should be, only the way it is, and to believe otherwise is a delusion.
2a) Even if premise #2 is false, and objective right and wrong can exist without God, an atheistic worldview implies that suffering is overall right (the way the world should be). This sharply contrasts with our experience and universal innate knowledge.
3) A better explanation is that God has instilled in us a true and reliable sense that suffering is wrong, and an ideal of an attainable world without suffering, to push us to attain to that world.
4) Therefore, our experience of suffering is better explained by God than by atheism.
Many of these premises are controversial, and need a lot of explaining and defending. So this might be my longest post yet (and quite frankly, hopefully ever). But let’s go through them and establish them as more likely true than false. First, let’s establish that suffering exists, and is objectively wrong.
Materials don’t suffer
We humans are made of atoms–protons, electrons, and neutrons–like any other structure in this universe. We are made of the same kind of raw material as stars, planets, mountains, plants, hydrogen peroxide, and liquid nitrogen–albeit in different combinations of those materials. But we also have capacities that no other collections of atoms in this universe have. One of those is the capacities to suffer.
Of all the things in the universe, only we–and maybe some of the more intellectually advanced animals–experience suffering. Mountains don’t experience pain as they erode, puddles don’t experience anguish as they dry up, and stars don’t lament their hurt as they age and fade into white dwarfs. Yet someone who claims that the material world is all there is would tell you we are no fundamentally different from those other things. We just happen to be a collection of atoms that is good at preserving themselves.
And yet when we suffer, we know that we are experiencing more than the human equivalent of a star’s burning out or a lake’s drying up. Those are just things taking their natural course, with no deeper meaning to the objects experiencing them. But when we suffer, we know that we are experiencing something that’s wrong.
Suffering is wrong
What do I mean by “wrong”? I mean that suffering is something that’s wrong with the world. For this argument, I will use “right” and “wrong” in a teleological sense. “Right” means the way something ought to be, in accordance with its proper design and purpose. “Wrong” means the way something should not be—where it deviates from its proper design and purpose.
The presence of suffering is a flaw in the way the world is. It’s a corruption of the way the world should be. In an ideal world, there would be no reason or occasion for suffering.
Certainly some suffering is wrong not just in a teleological sense, but in a moral sense. A lot of human suffering comes from the morally evil actions of other people. That’s clearly wrong. But then there’s also naturally-caused suffering. If a hurricane rips through Puerto Rico and destroys homes and lives, nobody did anything morally wrong. But it’s still wrong that hurricane victims have to suffer. They should not have to!
In cases like this, whether a moral wrong has been committed is irrelevant to how wrong the suffering is. If a hurricane rips through your property and destroys your home, that’s every bit as unjust, unfair, and painful as if an arsonist took a torch to your house and burned it to the ground.
Even beneficial suffering is still wrong
But what about suffering that is arguably right–suffering that has good effects and seems designed to produce them? If you accidentally put your palm flat on a hot stove, you’ll experience intense pain, but it will also cause you to pull your hand back and prevent further damage. The lingering pain will impress upon you that you should be careful never to do that again. That kind of suffering seems like the opposite of a flaw. It seems right.
There’s also suffering that is morally just. If someone is put in prison for committing murder, he will suffer the loss of his freedom, but he deserves to suffer that. Ultimately, it’s hoped that enduring that suffering will cause him to reform and begin to live a productive life in society.
It’s true that suffering can result in something good. Still, I would not say that any of these examples shows that suffering can itself be good. It’s still part of a flawed system. It’s a lesser wrong to prevent a greater one (in the case of the stove), or in response to a greater one (in the case of the murderer). Suffering is in these cases a necessary evil. But in a better world, our bodies wouldn’t be so fragile and easily damaged that we needed to experience pain to prevent it, and people wouldn’t commit acts of evil that required retribution and rehabilitation.
Somewhat ironically, the fact that people argue against the existence of God based on these realities is further evidence of this point. We all know that a better existence is possible, even attainable, where suffering is eradicated. We know that we should search for that kind of existence with all our being. We know that we have a duty to try to alleviate suffering and work toward that better world. That’s why we see theists and atheists alike doing charitable work and caring for those who suffer. We know that we are not meant to suffer.
Atheism implies our beliefs about suffering are a delusion
You could say, “Well, of course we think suffering is objectively wrong! Of course we think we aren’t meant to suffer! That’s what motivates us to find ways to ease our pain and preserve ourselves to reproduce. Perfectly explainable by evolutionary theory.”
Except if atheism is true, that notion is completely wrong.
As mentioned, if atheism is true, then there is no such thing as objective right or wrong when it comes to the way the world works. There’s no such thing as the way the world should be or ought to be, except in our own opinions. And our personal preferences about the way the world should be don’t mean anything at all. They don’t correspond to any objective reality.
So this leads us back once again to the evolutionary argument against naturalism. If evolution is true, it would suggest that our sense that suffering is wrong is a delusion. Considering the last few posts, the list of fundamental, universal human beliefs the naturalistic atheist must hold are delusions continues to grow. And with each item added to that list, the weaker the case the naturalist can make becomes for trusting any of our fundamental beliefs. This includes our belief in our own rationality and ability to discover truths about the world. If we can’t trust that, then we can’t trust the very methods we use to conclude that anything is true, including naturalism.
But let’s go another step. Let’s suppose that premise #2 is wrong, and objective right and wrong do exist even if atheism is true. We’ve established that we have an innate, universal knowledge that suffering is wrong. It is, at best, a necessary evil. But if there is overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise–that suffering is not wrong–then we should abandon that view.
An atheistic view of suffering implies suffering is right
How do you objectively define good and evil if there’s no God whose nature fundamentally defines it? We’ve discussed that before. The similar question can be asked: How do you objectively define right and wrong (in a teleological sense) if there is no God who designed the world with a purpose? Plenty of people have tried. Some have proposed a definition of right and wrong based on creaturely flourishing. Human flourishing (and maybe the flourishing of other living creatures) is right. Creatures are supposed to flourish. Human suffering (and the suffering of other creatures) is wrong. Creatures are not supposed to suffer.
But the atheist runs into a major obstacle here. (And this does not just apply to the view of suffering described above, but any view that holds both that atheism is true and that suffering is wrong.) According to the theory of evolution, suffering is exactly the way things progress. It is, after all, how we got here. It’s the way new things are made–destruction and reconstruction. A star exploded, and the remnants formed the sun and planets. Comets hit the Earth and in the devastation remained water and life-sustaining material. Millions of species, containing trillions of creatures, arose from their predecessors. A few adapted over time and survived, but most died out and became extinct. One of the greatest and most magnificent animals on Earth was wiped out by an asteroid to make room for our mammalian ancestors, and only by the suffering and dying of the primates and hominids before us did we ever come to be alive. Our suffering is just a form of the destruction and reconstruction that’s been going on forever and ultimately led to a better existence for those that remained (us).
But we don’t need to go all the way back to the abstract history of deep time. We need only look at human history to see how suffering got us where we are today. If you’re in the United States, you stand on the land you do because of the suffering and expulsion of the native tribes who came before you. This is actually true no matter where you stand, as undoubtedly your ancestors stole and appropriated land from some other people group sometime in the last tens of thousands of years. The global interconnectedness available to you today is in part due to the exploitation of much of the world by European colonists. Much of the innovation in the world, including inventions of convenience and entertainment, was brought about by attempts to alleviate suffering or potential suffering: to keep warm, to heal sickness, to maintain safety. If it weren’t for the suffering of so many, you would have no iPhone, air conditioning, motor vehicle, or any other modern luxury you can think of.
Of course, theism runs into this same obstacle. But theism has an answer: If God exists, then it’s possible that he originally created a world without suffering, which was subsequently corrupted. There could have been some way that creatures could have flourished without the suffering of other creatures. It’s also possible (and very likely, based on the innate desires he’s given us) that he created another world that is without suffering, a world that he ultimately intends for us to enter. Thus, it can still be said that suffering is not ultimately part of the world’s intended purpose.
But if atheism is true, advancement through suffering is not only the way the world works, but it’s the only way the world can work. Some must suffer and die to create a better, more advanced existence for those that remain. If atheism is true, this is the only way living creatures flourish. There is no other way. Evolution via natural selection is the one and only mechanism by which living creatures can come into existence and prosper. Evolution inevitably involves suffering. So it’s very hard to make the case that this is not how it ought to be, because if atheism is true, this is the only way it can be.
The implications of an atheistic view of suffering
Plus, it could be argued that the amount of good that emerged from that suffering outweighed the amount of evil that suffering entailed. The world is globally connected, life expectancy is almost double what it was just 100 years ago, global poverty is declining rapidly, and major powers of the world aren’t constantly fighting wars. All of this is true today because of the suffering of others who came before us. You could argue that the net effect of the world’s suffering has ultimately been right. Maybe it’s brought about a greater amount and quality of creaturely flourishing than the corresponding amount and quality of creaturely suffering.
So if we’re simply weighing in the balance the amount and quality of creaturely suffering against the amount and quality of creaturely flourishing, then if some amount of creaturely suffering brings about a greater amount and quality of creaturely flourishing, does it matter how that suffering takes place? Could it be justified to unnecessarily inflict suffering on the innocent if it brings about greater flourishing for those that remain? There doesn’t seem to be any reason why not, if atheism is true. And if unnecessarily inflicting suffering on the innocent is the only way to bring about greater creaturely flourishing and advancement, then that implies that inflicting that suffering is right.
Again, this is a challenge for theists as well. But once again, a theist has an answer: They can say that inflicting suffering on the innocent is wrong because inflicting unjust and unnecessary suffering on others is contrary to the will and command of a morally perfect God. Even if 10,000 people will benefit from unjust and unnecessary suffering inflicted on ten, it’s still a bad thing and should not be done (with the possible exception of extraordinary circumstances like the trolley problem). Even though it could make sense to our practical brains, God’s wisdom surpasses ours, and we are duty-bound to obey him.
But the atheist can’t make such a case. If right and wrong are simply defined by creaturely and societal flourishing, then it seems obvious that a thousand years of prosperity for ten billion people outweighs a few days of suffering inflicted unjustly on a hundred innocent people. Since this is the only way the world can work if atheism is true (the weak suffer to the benefit of the strong), it doesn’t seem that it can be wrong (again, if atheism is true).
If our best definition of “right” is that which leads to human flourishing, then it’s undeniable that suffering, in some cases, is right. It’s the way the world can work, the only way creatures can advance and flourish, and thus the only way the world should work. Obviously, almost no one agrees with this view of suffering. But if atheism is true, that seems to be the most coherent, experientially consistent view of suffering.
Therefore, this atheistic view is too weak when it comes to questions of unjust suffering. To be clear, an atheistic view of suffering doesn’t lead people to inflict suffering on the innocent. Theists and atheists alike do that, and knowledge that it is wrong doesn’t stop someone determined to do it anyway. But this atheistic view of suffering cannot adequately explain why we shouldn’t inflict unjust suffering if more people benefit from it to a greater degree.
Pretty much all of us, and most of humanity throughout history, know that view is objectively wrong. We’re not supposed to suffer. We’re not supposed to inflict unjust suffering. Inflicting suffering unjustly and unnecessarily is evil and should never be done. Even when inflicting or experiencing suffering is just and necessary, it’s a necessary evil. So we need an explanation of suffering that accords with what we already know to be true about it.
God is a better explanation
If a perfectly good and infinitely loving God exists, it makes sense that he would hate suffering. He would see it as wrong, and while we might ask why he would make a world with suffering at all, that’s a different question. What we can say is that if, for some reason, it was necessary for God to make a world that allowed for the possibility of suffering–say, it was inevitable that free creatures might inflict suffering on one another–he would at least give the creatures in that world the true knowledge that suffering is wrong. And if it’s possible to attain to a world without suffering–whether by eliminating suffering in this world or entering into another–it makes sense that he would give us a sense of that as well.
As mentioned before, theism also explains why we should not inflict unjust suffering. If we have a moral duty to conform to God’s nature and obey God’s commands, that justifies and explains our innate moral knowledge that we should not inflict unjust suffering on the innocent, no matter what benefit it may bring.
It can also explain why suffering can be wrong even when it brings about good. If right and wrong are defined by God’s intended design and purpose for the world, then we can make a meaningful distinction between the wrongness of suffering and the rightness it brings about.
The best explanation
I should make clear what this is not. This is not an argument of logical necessity. I’m not saying that God’s existence is the only possible explanation for our experience of suffering, even if the premises above are true. I’m saying it is the better explanation. It has substantial explanatory advantages over atheistic explanations, and thus is the more reasonable explanation to believe.
That doesn’t mean it simply answers more questions. That wouldn’t matter if the answers weren’t true. It means that a theistic explanation for our experience of suffering accords more with reality. It better takes into account the realities of our experience and knowledge, and does not undercut our basis for trusting in other forms of knowledge. It stands up against objections more strongly than atheistic explanations do. And it does not carry with it the bad implications of an atheistic explanation.
God’s existence also accords with and explains how we have an innate desire for a world that is better, attainable, and we long for it. We know that we are meant for a world free from suffering. Rather than a delusion, this is best explained by God instilling in us that sense that points us to a better world, an escape from suffering, and ultimately to himself.
Questions for readers:
If you’re a theist, does the problem of evil create difficulties for your faith? If you’re an atheist, does it contribute to the reasons for your lack of belief in God?
What strengths and weaknesses do you find in the argument from suffering? Would you ever make this argument to an atheist friend in its current form, or perhaps in a different form?
