Why Would God Allow Pain and Evil?

Detailed Answer: 

There are two different approaches to answer this question, depending on whether the one asking the question is still really raw in their hurt and emotions or not.  

 

Pain is a complex problem, and requires a significant answer, which is why so much is provided below. Let’s consider a question a young girl asked me, “Why did God let my mom die of cancer, and then I unfairly suffered with foster parents?”

 

If the person is still really hurting, the wound is still raw, then listen to them and love on them.

 

1st Ask what happened, and listen so you can best understand what the person experienced. 

 

2nd If you have not lost someone close to you yet, or haven’t experienced anything comparable to what the questioner suffered, admit where you are coming from, for example, “I can’t imagine what you are going through.” If you do have comparable experience, and are able to share, you can mention it, and share, if you think it may help. 

 

3rd Don’t go into the intellectual approach to the question of pain and evil, because if the person is still in pain, your words will at best be forgotten, and at worst add severe irritation or even more pain. Just be there to listen, love and care for their needs. 

 

When I am in the midst of emotional pain, if someone tried to explain the logical reason for pain, I would be inclined to add pain to them. This is not true for everyone, as some may move to the point of needing intellectual answers to the problem, and being able to handle the answers. Instead, just ask if you can offer something that might bring some consolation or help. 

 

4th There is a healthy time to move on from the raw pain, so you may be able to add:

 

“When you are ready, pain is a personal problem and requires a personal answer. Christianity doesn’t just give nice sounding or comforting words, but stands alone in giving a personal answer and verification of its claim.” 

 

Judge if the person wants to hear more, if so, below is a response to the very common thought of “Why did my mom have to die?”

 

“Why did my mom have to die?”

What I can’t do: I do not know enough to give a definitive answer. There are way too many factors involved. I know we have an enemy wanting to hurt us and separate us from God, I know why pain and suffering need a time to operate on earth, and know things happen due to choices and natural occurrences, but why did your specific relative die, instead of you, me, someone else, or no one else instead, I don’t know. 

What I do know: Some people hurt because they think God let it happen, because their mom must not have as much value to God, or his purpose, as other people. That is a sad and angering thought. Here is where we can help because there are three things, which, if people really understood, would answer a lot of the hurt. 

Let’s look at an answer I gave to a very emotional daughter, who lost her mother some time ago, but was still very much hurting …

 

1. God values your mom infinitely, just as much as he values you and me. 

 

What is the proof of that? 

• The Bible says that God made us, both men and women, in God’s image—we have the imago dei (Genesis 1:26-27). Every single person, regardless of physical and mental characteristics and capabilities, bears the image. We have intrinsic value and purpose because the transcendent being put the seal of purpose and value on each one of us.
• How do you know the real value of something? 

Think of a painting, or a car. The value of something is based on what one is willing to pay for it. 

Unlike every other belief system, Christianity doesn’t just provide theories or nice-sounding ideas telling us we are all valuable to God, that your mom has real value, Christianity alone provides the historical reality of the cross, a serious cost to pay, to demonstrate the value.  

Further, what is the highest expression of love one can show – self-sacrifice – and this is exactly what Christ expressed for us. Therefore, your mom does not have value just because you and others love her, but because she is transcendently loved.

 

1. God was with you, fully understands the pain as you go through it, and has the answer to pain.

 

We don’t need to wonder if God really knows our pain, it was demonstrated in history: Jesus suffered both during life as we do, and on the cross. 

During life, Jesus noted part of his purpose was letting us see how God is and how he sees our situation on earth (John 14:9). Jesus wept and emotionally hurt for those enduring pain in life, and he healed to demonstrate he is not the author of sickness and death, but is the authority over pain and death, and has the ultimate solution. There are other sources responsible for pain and injustice in the world, unfortunately, many place the blame and angst not against the actual source of the suffering, but on the one who is fully on their side, God. 

Yet, if the biblical God exists, and the comprehensive evidence supports this is the case, then picture an Author setting up our stage on Earth: while evil is allowed to write much into the play, God doesn’t wipe away the whole stage, but instead takes what evil writes in, and works out the final production as planned from the beginning.

At the cross, a great injustice happened. People condemned Jesus to brutal torture, then death as a criminal, even though he had no guilt. God could have stopped it, but he let it happen. 

When something entirely unfair, wrong or painful happens to us, we can trust God is there to comfort us, during the pain, and can work things out for good, as God already demonstrated this at the crux of history. God came to personally experience the unfair, wrong and painful, and had his arms spread at the cross to show us how expansive his love is for us, and then provided the greatest comfort for us by the verification of his ability to bring us beyond the pain and death of this world. 

 

By allowing a terrible evil to happen to his Son, we are given demonstrative proof that: our situation is serious, he understands and can sympathize with us in our pain, he loves us as thoroughly as any love we could ever know, he has the answer to pain and death, and, most importantly, has the authority to carry it out. 

God wants the best for us and will have those purposes met when all is said and done.

 

Lee Strobel summarized this well: “God isn’t some distant, detached, and disinterested deity; He entered into our world and personally experienced our pain. Jesus is there in the lowest places of our lives. Are you broken? He was broken. Are you despised? He was despised … Your sufferings are his sufferings. If you accept his offer of redemption at the door, then his victory over it all is yours too. Jesus was even sent to suffer and die so that when this time on earth is over, evil and suffering could be eradicated without destroying us along with it.”  

 

Christianity ALONE provides not only a personal answer, but also unprecedented verification of its FINAL answer.

 

1. Finally, value is not found solely in this world. 

There is a bigger picture needing to be accounted for. As a result, if God grants us life here, it is his choice when to allow our transition into the next. And since the next is a never-ending existence, it is there where the real value lies.

 

Even an emotionally overwhelmed person, at some point, needs to be encouraged to THINK.

 

Many have experiences so intense, they feel it will never go away. Nevertheless, there are endless accounts of people, who have moved into more peace, comfort and joy then they ever thought would be possible. How? There are several possibilities: maybe through psychological defense mechanisms bringing a false peace, maybe through counseling or an infinite supply of self-help guides, maybe time, maybe there is a God, who cares entirely, and can provide comfort and peace surpassing understanding, or some combination of those. 

 

The fact remains: people have been moving on to wonderful lives of peace and joy they always hoped for, even after suffering the worst tragedies. Therefore, it is up to the person who experiences serious suffering to choose to be one of those who move on, or not. 

 

The heart (feelings, emotions) can bring some of the best experiences in life, but the head (rational thought, reasoning) needs to lead, in order to keep us safe, and in a position to best experience the heart.

 

Dr. Gary Habermas, after years of marriage, lost his wife to cancer in traumatic fashion. When he discusses his suffering, which is also given in well-researched articles, and presentations on the topic, some very useful understandings are provided. 

 

He noted the event(s) itself, which causes the pain, is the “activator” of the pain. When one is close to the activating event, they are not in the frame of mind to hear much as emotions overwhelm, which is why just listening is wise. 

 

Habermas also noted peer-reviewed studies indicating much of the pain we experience, actually the vast majority of the pain we go through, comes from our own responses to the activator event. Some people move on from the activator, and only experience the natural initial pain, and then a lingering, but lessening pain. 

 Strobel, Lee. http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2012/july-online-only/doesgodallowtragedy.html?share=&paging=off

On the other hand, others continually focus on the activator of the pain, renewing the pain, taking ownership of the pain, identifying with the pain, and experiencing much more suffering from the same activator event than the person who does not focus too much of their thought life around the past event. 

 

Usually, even a serious cause of suffering, occurs in a limited time frame in our life. Therefore, it is within our choice to either use this difficult chapter from our past to build a better self to better face the rest of the chapters, or miserably dwell in that one chapter in life. Psychological studies, and common sense clearly hold the former as the better and only beneficial option. 

 

Furthermore, even if at a funeral for a loved one, or someone you cared about, if the person cared for you, then they would also hope you chose the former, and would move on in your life. Think about it, if they cared for you, then the tragedy would only be compounded if you allowed your life to also be continually injured. 

 

There are some challenges, which do not go away. Habermas noted his mom is a shut-in, unable to leave the house due to serious, chronic pain. The choice of how to respond does not change. Either one can develop the strength of the character traits necessary to move forward, and experience the best possible life for themselves, which may even exceed the opportunities before the challenge hit, or they can miserably dwell in self-centered pity, and failing to respond, allow the challenge to dictate the consequences and life that follows. Easier said than done, definitely, but it doesn’t change the fact that one way to respond will lead to vastly better results for you.

 

Of course, some self-pity is normal, and easy to fall into now-and-then, but there is also a time where the initial hit of the challenge is long past, and strongly encouraging one you care about to move on, is the only caring thing to do.

 

What would a Christian say to a child on their deathbed?

What would an atheist say?

Brief Answer: I know what I would say, but what would an atheist say?

 

Detailed Answer: 

I liked how Oxford mathematician John Lennox addressed this issue, by first observing the world has “beauty and barbed wire”, so how can we trust a God who creates such beauty and also allows the sharp hurtful things in life. Lennox correctly observed it is not just Christianity, but whatever belief system you choose to commit to also has to answer this question.

 

If a dying child asks how could a loving God allow her suffering, I’d recognize pain is a personal problem and deserves a personal answer, and only Christianity provides both a personal answer and validation of its claim. As noted in a previous answer, Lee Strobel summarized this well: “God isn’t some distant, detached, and disinterested deity; He entered into our world and personally experienced our pain. Jesus is there in the lowest places of our lives. Are you broken? He was broken. Are you despised? He was despised … Your sufferings are his sufferings. If you accept his offer of redemption at the door, then his victory over it all is yours too. Jesus was even sent to suffer and die so that when this time on earth is over, evil and suffering could be eradicated without destroying us along with it.”  

 

Could God make a world without any evil? Of course, even humans can do that, it would simply be a world of robots. But if you want a world containing the beauty of free will, nature, and relationships, then you will have the barbed wire of evil acts, natural cause and effect disasters, and emotional pain. The question then becomes, can we trust a God in such a world? And as Lennox remarks, at the heart of Christianity is a cross, and if this central claim is correct, that Jesus is God incarnate, then that was God on the cross. Think what this means. It means God came personally, he is not distant, but comes right into the struggle with us, and the unprecedented evidence to verify Christianity’s central claim, the resurrection from death, opens the amazing possibility that justice will be done ultimately, by an authority capable of moving us beyond the pain and death.   

 

Richard Dawkins echoed the response of many atheists, “I fight for justice in this life.” Lennox observed then Dawkins has no hope for ultimate justice. Endless people through time did not get justice they deserved in this life, and with no existence beyond this life, the cries from the holocaust gas chambers, from abused children, and from you and I go unanswered. 

 

What is atheism’s answer to the child asking why she is dying of cancer so young? In Dawkins’ own words, “some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.” In fact, even if the child got cancer because a drug company knowingly dumped carcinogenic material in the city’s water supply, the atheist could not even say the drug company was evil or objectively wrong for doing so. The world just is the way it is. When I ask atheists for an answer to pain in the world, I get this same trivial answer, and they usually try to quickly move on to another topic. This answer is empty of the hope, and the supportive evidence Christianity provides. 

 

New age believers and Hindus offer hope, well, not really. They will tell the child their pain is just an illusion and when they realize life is an illusion, or they cease to be on earth, they will become one with the universe. Aside from the absurdity of telling a child, whose nerves and organs are feeling the pain of cancer and chemotherapy, that pain is an illusion, the idea of merging with the universe sounds hopeful, I guess, but is only as hopeful as the evidence supporting the reliability of this hope – which is none.

 

If God is all-powerful and loving, then why allow the pain and evil we see in the world?

 

If a person is open to an intellectual answer, and is wondering why God would allow such pain and evil, or, for a person using pain and evil as a reason they think God does not exist, then they may be open enough to go through the logic involved in this study, which is long and complex, because the topic is. Yet, the bottom-line is the same:

 

Brief Answer: Your challenge makes sense if God just wanted goldfish, but that is not the case, God wanted something more profound.

 

The argument from pain/evil in the world is likely the most common and best argument to use against God because it doesn’t need to rely on evidence, it has powerful emotions, which we all feel at times. And, if God exists, it is natural to question God first. 

 

So, let’s ask the question about God first, and then see where the question about pain really leads. It is instructive to observe how the argument against God from pain/evil, has changed over time, so we will start with the most basic argument, and move towards what the argument has evolved into.

 

The challenge against God is sometimes given as a logical argument, as follows: 

 

Premise 1: God is loving, good, and all-powerful.

Premise 2: A loving and good God would want to stop evil and suffering, and an all-powerful God could stop it.

Premise 3: Evil & suffering exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

 

J.L. Mackie wrote one of the more well-known and used articles supporting this claim in 1951, Evil and Omnipotence, and states: “… good is opposed to evil, in such a way that a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can, and that there are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do. From these it follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good omnipotent thing exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible.” 

 

Do you see the leap in logic in the argument? Hint: premise 2. 

 

Several inaccurate assumptions are usually at work in people, who incorrectly believe the existence of pain and suffering make it impossible or unlikely a loving and powerful God exist: 

1. a misunderstanding of what “omnipotent”, almighty” or “all-powerful” means; 
2. failing to recognize suffering and evil may be allowed for a limited time for a greater good;
3. assuming you have the comprehensive knowledge of the One you are trying to deny (God), in order to make your argument.

 

Inaccurate assumptions 1 and 2 will be covered below, and 3 is explained in the section: How do you know how God should have done things?

  

1. Some assume God being referred to as “almighty” means God can do anything. This is not what the Bible claims. God being almighty does not mean God can do all things, it simply means this Being is maximal in power. This even surprises some who claim to believe in the Bible. 

 

For those who believe the Bible, but think God can do anything: Can God sin? No. God does not act against his nature. Want another example? Could one with the power to create the universe, create a stick with one end? No, it’s a logical contradiction, which cannot be made, regardless of power. Can God create a rock so big he cannot move it? No. God cannot create such logical contradictions, like a square circle, or a married bachelor, or a rock so big he couldn’t move it. 

 

God also cannot create a world with the superior property of free will without the possibility of evil, and all the suffering following with it. It is simply not possible to make all people freely choose to always do good. If God grants people the dignity of genuine freedom in their choices, then it is impossible for God to guarantee the choices made in that world will not include evil. It may be there is no possible world in which there is both free will and the ability to truly love, and no pain and evil. 

 

1. Which brings us to the second misunderstanding people often have: the failure to recognize pain and evil may be allowed in a limited time and place, in order to allow for the greater good of free will, necessary personal growth, and the ability to love in relationships. 

 

As parents know well, those valuable treasures in life, such as love, trust, growth, don’t come out-of-thin-air. Parents have 18 years to build love, trust and personal development (for some of you, who live in your parent’s basement until 30, it obviously takes longer). 

 

The reason why the argument against God fails is due to Premise 2, because a loving God may not want to stop evil and suffering, at least not yet. 

 

Here is the logical argument again, this time without the faulty premise: 

 

Premise 1: God is omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good, and loves us.

Premise 2: It is not part of God’s power to create a world with moral good without creating a world with evil.

Premise 3: God created a world containing moral good.

Premise 4: Therefore, God created a world containing moral evil.

Conclusion: Therefore, evil exists.

 

All we need to do is show it’s possible an omnipotent being could suspend eliminating evil to achieve greater good, and the logical argument against God from the existence of pain fails, and it does fail.

 

Even J.L. Mackie came to realize this, and while people are still using his 1951 paper to argue against God, Mackie, after admitting the validity of Platinga’s Free Will Defense, wrote a follow-up article in the 1980’s refuting his former claim (see image). Philosophers have moved on from this faulted argument.

 

If the premises were all true and the logical argument against God was valid, then we would have had certainty God does not exist. But, the argument fails, and those seeking to disprove God had to turn to a more humble argument: the “Probabilistic Problem of Evil”: 

Premise 1: It is unlikely that an all loving, and all powerful God would allow evil.

Premise 2: Evil exists.

Conclusion: An all loving, all powerful God does not exist.

 

This “Probabilistic” or “Evidential Problem of Evil” is an inductive argument, meaning you make your best inference based on the data we have. Notice the use of “unlikely” in the first premise, which means the argument cannot give certainty, but can, at best, show it is unlikely, or less probable, God exists.

 

Yet again, just as the logical argument failed, the probabilistic argument cannot bear its burden of proof to even claim it is improbable God exists. 

 

Can you see where this argument breaks down? Why would it be “unlikely”, for if a God sought to have free will and love, then evil and suffering would have to be allowed, for reasons discussed previously.

 

Think about it: If God wanted to provide others with the opportunity of having true loving and trust-filled relationships, how do you think God could accomplish that? 

Professor and philosopher Paul Draper notes in the “God and Creation” chapter of the Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (page 335).

You would have to have a limited space and time where free will can operate, and those created can learn and choose to either love and trust God’s way, or go another way. If we were just programmed to be how God wants, we would be robots, and real love doesn’t exist if it is not freely chosen. Yet, free will, which allows love, the ability to learn, and the free choice of what to trust, also allows evil. 

 

So much of the suffering and evil I have experienced, was due to jerks’ choices, with myself being one of those jerks. If there is free will, most likely pain and evil will follow. In fact, starvation is often brought up as an evil in the world, which should not be. Yet, recurrently studies show the world has more than enough resources to feed everyone, but people’s selfish choices have led to so many being neglected. 

 

In addition, our free will and the free will behavior of others allows us to see whether God’s way is what we choose to surrender to, or whether we would rather go another way. 

 

In order to build trust, you have to give evil (by that I mean any person, being or choice against God, or against God’s nature) an almost free run, so when all is said and done, when the play is over and the Author walks the stage, no person or angel, will be able to claim God didn’t really allow all other ways a fair chance because he limited creation too much. 

 

When James Warner Wallace, an accomplished cold case detective, was explaining his parenting, I started feeling sorry for his kids. Hard to thrive as a trouble-maker with an actual detective in the house. 

 

Surprisingly though, his approach seemed freeing, and the best way to accomplish his hopes. He noted kids may say they love us to our face, but if you want to know if children truly love you, trust what you say, and will choose to follow the “Wallace way,” you must (1) give them freedom, and (2) get out of the way. 

 

After doing those two things, once the children are not under your shadow, if you could be a fly-on-the-wall somewhere later in their life, you would truly see if they love you, trust you, and follow, or live up to, the Wallace name.

 

You can’t build courage without danger, endurance without struggle, charity without poverty, hope without you suffering, compassion without someone else suffering, etc. These character traits, important to us and God, are not developed, or even observed in others, out-of-thin-air. 

 

A science-fiction book even explored this point well. One seriously abused character was encouraging another struggling with pain, and shared: “I’m broken, who isn’t. Life breaks us, then we fill the cracks with something that makes us stronger.” (Oathbringer, Sanderson) 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/the-world-produces-enough-food-to-feed-everyone-so-why-do-people-go-hungry

And have you ever seen MTV’s Sweet Sixteen reality show? If you want to see how character develops, when all pain and challenge are kept away and all our wants met, watch the show and be disgusted. 

Therefore, claiming pain and evil in the world are a reason to think God does not exist would only make sense if God just wanted goldfish, then God should ensure we are fed well and our fishbowl is as comfortable as possible, and God has certainly not done that. Then again, if God wanted something more profound, like a relationship of love and trust and our personal growth, then a very different type of fishbowl is needed. 

 

So back to the “Probabilistic Problem of Evil”. Claiming it is “unlikely” God would allow such evil and pain in the world sounds reasonable at first, until you consider all the reasons involved. 

 

Considering God’s situation of wanting to allow us the genuine freedom to choose to love and trust a relationship with God, or to go another way, and the need, as noted by Jim Wallace for children to develop the healthiest growth and character and be able to live the “Wallace Way”, by their own choice, would seem to require a world just as we find ourselves in. 

 

In fact, to claim it is still “unlikely” requires knowledge on the level of God’s, and since there are special care-giving facilities for people who make such claims, for the rest of us, our limited knowledge of all the factors involved places “error bars” or uncertainty on our claim, so large as to make any claim of being “unlikely” unreliable.   

 

Actually, such evil and pain should be not only “likely”, but expected by Christians, as the Bible redundantly notes through statements and personal examples that life will be filled with such struggles.

 

What about seemingly unnecessary suffering?

 

While the uninformed still attempt to use the logical or probabilistic problem of evil, many seemed to have backtracked further from these arguments, and fall on the idea of unnecessary suffering. I ran into this one during a debate:

 

Premise 1: The number of apparently pointless instances of suffering is highly unlikely on the assumption that a perfectly loving, all powerful God exists. 

Premise 2: The number of apparently pointless instances of suffering is highly likely on the assumption that metaphysical naturalism is true. 

Conclusion: Therefore, the number of apparently pointless instances of suffering strongly supports Metaphysical Naturalism over the Christian God Hypothesis.” 

 

I think my opponent in the debate made the best possible argument using this more modest, yet emotion-filled argument.

 

Nonetheless, the person making the claim must bear the burden of proof for the premises in their argument to be taken seriously. And that burden may be crushing when considering the following:

 

1. Why is the suffering unlikely? True free will probably requires evil having a wider latitude than you may like. In fact, if Christianity is true, seemingly pointless suffering isn’t unlikely – it is expected.
2. You would need the knowledge of God to claim God is wrong in allowing something.
3. Do you really think you have enough knowledge to judge? Or, would you showing some humility be the wiser position to take?

 

1. Why is the suffering unlikely? Why should even very high levels of evil and seemingly unnecessary suffering be unexpected, even with God in the picture?

 

If one wanted to set up a system allowing for free will and true choice, evil (by that I mean any person, being or choice against God’s will) would require an almost free run, so that, when all is said and done, when the play is over and the Author walks the stage, no one will be able to claim God didn’t really allow all other ways a chance to be tried because he limited creation too much. Therefore, it is not surprising there are seemingly unnecessary levels of evil, pain, and suffering. 

 

In fact, if Christianity is true, then seemingly pointless suffering isn’t unlikely, it is expected as the Bible provided many examples, showing people asking the exact same questions, yet at the same time, knowing there is a God they could complain to!

 

1. You would need the knowledge of God to claim God is wrong in allowing something.

 

It is not even possible to know what pain is “unnecessary”, unless you can show you have the encompassing perspective to speak with authority, as opposed to ignorance. 

The thing exciting me most, when first learning of physics, was if I had the proper equation and values to stick in for the variables, I could literally predict how things would turn out. For example, I could predict where my “bottle rocket” fireworks would land, when targeting specific houses, and how much time I had to make my get-away before the rockets hit. 

 

Now, when you consider the complexities of life, if one knew all the equations and all the variables, then they would be in a position to know the complete “ripple effect” an event would have throughout life and the world. The mathematical “Chaos Theory”, and movies “It’s a Wonderful Life” and “Sliding Doors” illustrate nicely how events can have quite complex ripple effects. 

 

The only way one could criticize a Being, who has such a complete understanding and still allows certain events to occur, would be to have a complete understanding matching the Being! In other words, a person would have to be God in order to criticize the system God is sovereign over.

 

Unfortunately, I do not have God’s perspective, and there were often variables I didn’t think to add into my calculations. For example, when shooting the bottle rockets, I hadn’t considered that the fire caused would escalate the search for the perpetrator even if I initially got away, or prior knowledge (my trouble-making background) our neighborhood could apply and determine I was the only one around who would do such a thing. 

 

We have all probably heard about or experienced examples of very bad things, which eventually led directly to some greater good, even making us better people. So many people have so many examples of even seemingly pointless suffering they experienced leading to such good they would have otherwise never attained. Even atheist writings have noted how suffering has led many to turn to God, although I would say led many to recognize their need of God, and if there is an eternal and saving relationship with God as the greatest possible good, then this gives great reason for anything to lead us to find that relationship.

 

God, who would know all the equations and all the variables, could take bad events and use them for good, even good things many years away and across the world. J.M.L. Monsabre gets it: “If God would concede me His omnipotence for twenty-four hours, you would see how many changes I would make in the world. But if He gave me His wisdom too, I would leave things as they are.”

 

Aside from the examples you have probably observed through life, the Bible itself provides an example: what happened to Jesus seemed pointless suffering as he did nothing to deserve such treatment, and he could have avoided the crucifixion by simply retracting his claim to be God. Yet, that seemingly pointless suffering ripples through all history with waves of forgiveness for all who accept the God who took on the penalty of sin on himself.

 

Doesn’t mean God sees all these things that happen as good, or is not with you in your anger and/or grief, but it does mean – we need some humility – as maybe we don’t know enough of the full picture as we think we know.

 

1. Do you really think you have enough knowledge to judge? Or, is humility the wiser position to take?

 

I am not God, therefore, any answers I give will be based on assumptions. In fact, no person can provide certain answers for some issues, unless they are equal to God. We live under certain limitations in perspective and knowledge (a good analogy to this is given in Edwin Abbot’s Flatland, and The Allegory of the Cave provided by Plato), especially when considering any questions dealing with: why God would or would not do something, how God should do something, or attributes of God not specifically communicated by God. 

 

If I could know absolutely everything about God, then I would think that that “God” is just a human invention. Some questions we must approach humbly and realize there are some things we know, and some things we do not know. We should not expect an infinite Being to give an exhaustive revelation, but instead have some aspects unknown or beyond our finite minds.

 

When doing a study in physics, as with other sciences, the values we obtain through experiments have some uncertainties tied to them, and this is shown as error bars, and helps you know how confident you should be in decisions based on the data. 

 

 Many people, in many areas of life, base too much confidence on data as presented, without considering the error bars, which are a part of every study. An example you may be familiar with is found in polling during elections, which was hilariously demonstrated in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Not saying “hilarious” because I was for one candidate or the other, I was disappointed with both, but watching the shock and thorough transformation of people’s expectations at either party’s headquarters was so interesting. 

The “Margins of Error” image was just one I found on the web from a Rassmussen poll, taken well before the election. The polling just prior to the election showed Clinton ahead. While this image shows Trump with a one-point lead over Clinton, look at those error bars. 

 

Basically, those bars show the range of where the point may actually be, based on the uncertainty in the poll. Therefore, since the poll isn’t perfect, Trump may be at 40, and Clinton at 45, or Trump at 45 and Clinton at 40. In other words, these candidates are too close to have confidence in the outcome based on the poll.

 

Humility would have been the wise position, until obtaining data with more confidence, otherwise, lack of humility could lead to humiliation. And it did, and does, and will in the future. 

 

The need for humility is even more significant in other areas of life. When considering seemingly pointless suffering, recognition of our limited scope and depth of knowledge results in error bars spread wide enough to make a conclusion against God unreliable. 

 

As displayed in the issues noted above, we are far from a position to know enough to claim God shouldn’t have allowed things to be as they are. Humility is a position less taken, but more warranted in many situations. Based upon what we know, and the vast amount more we don’t know, the wiser position would be to either trust the One who has demonstrated the position and authority to know, or wait for more data or look at the comprehensive case to support your choice to reject the existence of such an Authority.  

 

The question, “Why would God allow this”, is a reasonable question, but a secondary question.

 

You may have things you hold against God, but I think these are all secondary issues. The primary issue is: Does God exist? If such a being exists, then we have to have a lot more humility! Because if such a being like God exists, then it is reasonable to assume our thoughts, of how God did things wrong, may not take all necessary information into account. 

 

Many people need to be better at doubting your doubts about God, instead of dwelling on them and not seeking answers. Pain sometimes encourages a terrible thought, “God doesn’t care about you. Could have stopped it, but didn’t.” You may respond with something you have heard, “God is for me”, but then how do I reconcile God wanting the best for me, but I am suffering?

 

There will always be things we do not understand, as covered in other answers in this section, which is why the Bible speaks of faith. Now this is not the “blind faith” some have come to think, which is not biblical, and not actual “faith”. When I was too afraid to jump off a diving board into the deep end of the pool for the first time, my dad swam over and said “Jump”. So I did, due to faith in my dad. This was a faith based on reasons, or better translated as “trust”. There are always reasons to support faith, if not, then you have an unnatural faith, which is either blind, or worse, goes against the evidence and is foolish, and that is the kind of faith you should doubt. 

 

On the other hand, the comprehensive case of evidence supports there is a Father in Heaven, who sees you as one of a kind and has your best in mind, even if it may include a bigger picture you are incapable of grasping yet. In that case, the evidence makes it more reasonable to doubt your doubts.

 

If God trusts you enough to allow something that comes at you in life, then there will be a tension in your thoughts, a seeming cognitive dissonance, between the good you know about God, and what you may struggle with, but this is should not catch us unexpected. The Bible, which I have heard referred to as Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, gives reasons why God allows evil in general, but does not have the space to explain why all particular instances of evil or pain occur. Therefore, the Bible includes many particular examples of people who loved and trusted God, yet went through things that would naturally bring that voice of doubt.  

 

Read the account of Joseph. I would not have blamed him if he felt the whole situation was unfair while serving in Potiphar’s house. He was doing the right thing, and had people treat him entirely unfair, but he took it and refused to doubt what he knew about God. You have to think the little voices of doubt were calling to Joseph, but instead, he evidently doubted his doubts and refused to lose hold of God. There are many similar examples provided biblically as God knew people through time would have similar struggles, yet Joseph and others had their reasons to trust God, and we do too. 

 

There is nothing wrong with doubts, they are natural. However, allowing a doubt to fester by trying to avoid it, or by not having more reasons to support what you accept over your doubt, does set you up with a problem. Some doubts are justified, and some doubts need to themselves be doubted, but it all sorts itself out much easier when you have a good foundation of reasons to be standing where you do on your beliefs. 

 

What about suffering caused by nature, like catastrophes?

The focus so far was evil or pain produced primarily by people’s free will, but what about natural disasters? The Bible claimed, and then science discovered, God set up fixed laws or patterns in nature. The goal of creating a world with natural order, where reason is able to thrive using understanding of cause and effect, inherently brings suffering caused by nature.

 

Fixed laws are the foundation for cause & effect, which makes life predictable and allows the ability to reason and learn. If things do not behave in regular ways, if causes did not lead to logical effects, we would be unable to know the effects our actions will have. We may take this predictable natural order for granted, but if it did not exist, then very valuable things in life, including reason, learning, character development, and the effective use of free will would be lost.

 

Natural order has natural causes leading to natural effects, which can cause pain and are viewed as natural evils in this world. This means the same water that nourishes, can drown you, the same wall that supports a building, can collapse on you, the same plate tectonics providing suitable land features can lead to earthquakes and tsunamis, the same neural pathways transmitting pleasure and warnings of dangers can also transmit incredible pain. 

 

Have you ever wondered why God didn’t stop the tsunami, which killed over 100,000 people? This is a common thought, but a thought requiring more thought than people usually give it. 

 

Should God have suspended or changed the natural order of the universe in that case? If it was worthy enough for God to create an orderly universe as opposed to a chaotic one, then we may want to humbly stop and think before cursing a particular aspect of the order. 

 

Furthermore, the person asking probably does not understand the scope of their demand. Who knows how unaware we are about what God has prevented? And if God prevented the one specific tsunami or earthquake, people will then ask why wasn’t another one stopped, ad infinitum. Why not stop all earthquakes? To change one aspect of the natural order, such as earthquakes, shakes with massive repercussions throughout the rest of the natural system. Do you know what would happen if plate tectonics did not exist? Look it up.

 

And people, who think some modification of our present natural system would significantly reduce the amount of natural evil we experience, cannot just give isolated examples where the modifications would help. They must verify that, in the context of the entire world system, their modification of our present system would significantly reduce the amount of overall evil we experience, and increase the net amount of good. No one has ever given such verification. Nor could they, as we are too limited in our ability to calculate all the repercussions in the big picture.

 

And then, if all earthquakes were removed from the system, the same line of questioning may turn to fires, for example. Since just about all natural objects can produce harmful results, then all of these objects of nature would have to be modified too. The argument would never end, until there is never any pain brought about by our natural system. The natural order would be lost. Humans would be much more unaware of their lack of control in the universe, lack of learning and character development possible, and be that much more unlikely to thank and seek the Creator.

 

Doesn’t God promise protection and blessings to believers?

Why do bad things happen to good people?

Yes and no, depending on what you think the “protection” and “blessings” entail.  

 

People often accept things, without really checking for themselves, leading to misunderstandings (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and leads to the mistaken idea that becoming a Christian means your health, wealth, and comfort will be protected. Again, if we were simply goldfish to God, then it’s a reasonable expectation. On the contrary, the Bible notes there will be suffering as this is a fallen world, and a world with purpose (I John 5:19, Romans 8:18-22, John 6:33). 

 

And consider the countless accounts in the Bible of believers, who had serious struggle and suffering. These people asked the same questions of God we do when hit with suffering, yet were entirely protected and blessed and still trusted the God who provided reasons for the trust.  

 

One solemn account in the Bible, which may also produce a laugh from those of us with a sick sense of humor, was recorded by the physician Luke regarding Jesus’ response to questions about suffering (Luke 13:1-5). People questioned Jesus about some who were massacred while worshipping in church, and were asking why do bad things happen to good people. 

 

The questioners followed-up by asking about the eighteen killed while coming out of church, when the tower in Siloam collapsed, and people of the time often speculated those people or their parents were terrible sinners. Jesus simply dismissed the faulty idea observing neither the people who perished, nor their parents were any worse sinners than anyone else in the city. He concisely made it clear that accidents happen, it wasn’t about how good or bad they were, as people so often think. They died because they happened to be under the tower when it collapsed. 

 

When all in our life is said and done, we will see the overall protection and ultimate gifts God provided as the “big picture” comes into focus. Until then, it will be natural to have questions, especially when viewing a perceived lack of protection or blessings using the limited scope of view people typically do.

 

What are your expectations of God? Are you seeing the full perspective?

 

Expectations, especially in relationships, can be harmful if wrong. Some people, because of the attributes of God, expect to have only good in their life from a loving and good God, and if something bad hits, then these people especially are angry. 

 

Of course, I understand as I have felt this myself, but are those expectations realistic? Of course not, do you know the Bible well enough to have the full context? 

1. God owes you nothing, so gratefulness for any lack of bad or any good is the only warranted response. What validates your entitlement? We get annoyed at kids with entitlement issues.
2. We may be accusing the wrong source, as God provides free will, and does allow bad things to happen, but is not the source of them. Similarly, a parent, who loves you (if you were lucky enough to experience this), will let you out of the house to experience the world, knowing, and sometimes even allowing, bad things to occur, but is not the source of them, and grieves with and supports you through it.
3. Maybe you missed something? The Bible makes it very clear pain and evil are a part of this life. Jesus made clear even his closest followers can expect suffering in this life (John 16). The same Jesus who suffered way more and unjustly than you likely will, notes the reality of suffering during life, but came to demonstrate historically and personally God really understands suffering, weeps with you through it, has the ability to put an end to suffering and evil, and can spare you from that ending.
4. Redundantly through the Bible the point is made: life’s primary purpose is not comfort, there are much greater objectives for your life.
5. Finally, if you are measuring pain within only the context of life, then you are missing the necessary perspective …

 

Partly from laziness, partly from not being able to explain more simply, I asked Detective Jim Wallace to use his slides regarding proper perspective, shown below. 

If the evidence showed this life is all there is, you have a time-line-segment, starting at birth and ending completely at death. If your parents lived into their 90s, so you expect 90 pain-free, enjoyable years in life, then if you had a stroke at 40, followed by 10 rough years trying to recover, and then losing your life at 50, as shown in the second slide, many would be upset and consider everything after 40 as evil, or as unfairly taken from them.

The anguish and injustice felt at such situations can be found in many places, such as the song “10,000 Days (Wings Part 2)”. Maynard James Keenan’s, mother, Judith Marie, suffered a stroke in 1976, leaving her partially paralyzed and wheelchair bound. The length of time between her paralysis and her death was 27 years, or approximately 10,000 days, and Maynard, singer-songwriter for music groups, including Tool and A Perfect Circle, expressed much of himself through those tracks. No one can discount the personal emotions. Can context actually help in this case?

 

Judith Marie Keenan, through all 10,000 days and beyond, kept her trust in Christ, she is now experiencing the wider perspective. If God exists, and purposely blesses each soul with a life on earth, and at some point God allows that life to be transitioned to the eternal part, then as time spent with God goes on and on, the time spent in this life dwindles into true insignificance in the wider perspective. 

Here is another example of context: How many reading this have had a life-saving operation when real young? One week, when my dad was out-of-town for work, and my mom was at home with me, my eyes went rolling to the back of my head and a huge fever sent me into convulsions. While I think this is not done today, back then, the hospital stuck me in an ice bath to get control of the fever, and for days afterward, instructed my parents to force me into ice baths at home, whenever the fever got too high. 

If you asked me then, if I could talk, through chattering teeth I would say life sucks, as would any child today while going through lifesaving, but horrible procedures. Yet, check with us 5 years later, and in the context of life, the horrible time during the life-saving procedure is now nothing.

 

We suffered for some time, but then it was done. What if life is not a line segment, but a geometric ray, meaning it has a beginning point, but then goes on infinitely. If so, anything happening during life now, even if full of the worst suffering, must now be put in the context of eternity. Think of 90 years, compared to forever, and the longer the ray extends, the more the time here becomes a memory and a grain of sand on the beach of forever. 

 Borka Petrovic (3 August 2012). “Maynard James Keenan talks about Judith” – via YouTube. ^ http://teamrock.com/feature/2016-11-28/the-10-best-songs-by-a-perfect-circle 

The Chernobyl television series highlighted lack of proper perspective. As a physicist, I was keenly aware of some of the issues of radiation exposure as they unfolded in the show, but was really caught off guard when hearing of how much bigger the problem could have been. 

 

I was familiar with the tragic stories of the initial responders to the disaster, dozens died, but hadn’t heard that the molten sand, which was used to first cover the exposed reactor area, and then began melting its way toward a water supply, would have super-heated the water and caused an incredible explosion. The radioactive elements of all the reactors would have been turned to a dust, which launched into the atmosphere and dangerously irradiated people in many nations. 

 

When the scientists involved realized this, the Soviet leadership convened and decided to force workers to mine their way to the water and remove it, which would lead to the deaths of all those workers. Of course, if this work wasn’t done, the death toll was vastly higher. And later, further massive clean-up of the entire area was required to prevent international radiation impact. Cannot remember the exact figures, but when the top Soviet leadership asked how many worker deaths would likely occur due to all the clean-up, the physicist answered maybe 10,000.

 

Now, think what you would do. If you were the leader responsible of making the decisions, think of all the incalculable suffering of the workers and families involved in the clean-up. Was it fair or right to deceptively and forcefully use the mining workers to avert the super-heated water problem? What about the following clean-up and all those families involved. As for me, I was harshly judging the Soviet leadership, until I heard about the amazing number of families that would unfairly suffer if the work wasn’t done. Then I saw the suffering of the first responders, and I switched back to judging more harshly, then I heard more forecasts about what would have occurred if the work wasn’t done. In the end, I am so glad I didn’t have to make the decisions. 

 

I can just see myself going off on the last leader of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev, angrily stating, “How dare you force those workers to sacrifice their lives for something they had nothing to do with. Are you just protecting your self-centered image?”

 

But he has a response, doesn’t he? In a weary and sorrowful voice he could say, “If not for them, many, many more as the repercussions and suffering would surge even greater.” I still may not be convinced, but, to keep this analogy comparable to God’s situation: what if the Soviet leader was able to fully resurrect all the workers who died? 

 

What is your alternative?

 

Have you thought enough about your alternate belief to realize what you are believing in? 

 

For many, the answer is atheism, but that answer comes with a price. One of, and maybe still the most well-known atheist, Richard Dawkins, explains atheism’s answer well: 

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it: For nature, heartless, witless nature; Will neither care nor know – DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” 

 

Consider that answer. Then consider a documentary about drug cartels killing police officers in Mexico, which highlighted a woman, who had her husband and family ripped apart because the cartel identified her husband and followed him home to assassinate him in front of his family. This woman may have very strong feelings about her pain, however, if the world lacks God as atheists believe: 1) all her feelings are illusory, as every single atom in her brain, and therefore, every thought or behavior she has is entirely controlled by “blind physical forces”, 2) she cannot really blame the murderer of her husband as all his thoughts and actions are also entirely determined by initial conditions and natural laws, 3) there is no eventual justice as there is no ultimate Authority, and 4) what happened is not “evil” or even “wrong”, and the universe neither knows or cares. 

 

For the atheist, the problem of evil remains, because if there is no God, then you would have no ability to claim moral outrage. Further, reality will force you to contradict yourself almost every day of your life … 

 

If a tsunami wiped all life in Hawaii into the ocean. Is that tragedy? If atheism is accurate, then there is no special purpose for humanity, and according to Dawkins’ definition it is not a tragedy. While families impacted would have very negative feelings towards the event, aside from the fact that all those feelings are illusory and controlled by natural laws anyway, there is nothing objectively wrong. Purpose comes from a Creator, only non-purpose comes from an entirely indifferent natural cause of the universe. In fact, massive families of other animals in the oceans would be very grateful for the boon of nutrients the tsunami provided by wiping all life off the land and into the ocean. 

 

Ever been really upset about something someone did to you, or to others, that was so wrong? Such moral outrage makes no sense if there is no God. If you ever claim something is wrong, evil, bad, goes against the way things should be – all of that is silly or non-sense – if God does not exist. Not labeling it “non-sense” as ridicule, but how it is referred to in philosophical discussions.

 

This response is especially useful when someone is claiming God or Christians are doing something immoral. You can pick something the person is complaining about, for example, the annoyingly disingenuous claim of God committing genocide in having the Israelites remove the Canaanites from the land (see FAQ: Why would God command the complete destruction of the Canaanites?), and ask, “Is it wrong to attempt to kill all the people of an entire race? Is it wrong all the time, in every situation?” 

Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

Hopefully, they will answer “Yes.” If they are well-read enough to know they are stepping into a contradiction-bear-trap, they may say “No”! I have actually had some people do that, to which you respond, “There are special rooms for people like you, and special places in history for others who have thought the same way you do.” 

 

If they answer “Yes”, then say, so you believe in “objective morality”, meaning there is absolute rights & wrongs, which are true for all people, places and times? If they say no, then ask them to think about the very worst evil or wrong they can. Once they have something, ask is it wrong in every situation and time? Then let them know if there is one thing that is objectively right/wrong/moral, then objective morality exists. 

 

This is important because if there is such a thing as wrong or evil applicable to all people, places, and times, then there is also such a thing as right or good. If you know there is such a thing as right/wrong, good/evil, then you also must know there is a moral law or standard, from which you can differentiate between right/wrong. If there is a moral law, you must have a moral law giver, in a position transcending all human opinion, and to enforce the moral law. 

 

But this moral law giver you are trying to claim doesn’t exist. But if you are right, with no moral law giver, then there’s no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no good/right, and if that is the case, then there is no true evil/wrong, so what are you complaining about? 

 

If you don’t have a moral law giver, one who is in a position to know, beyond all humanity’s subjective opinions, and who knows all the equations and variables, and who has the authority to enforce this objective morality, then there is no right/wrong, just different opinions. For a more detailed coverage of this issue, see blog: The Morality Argument for God.

 

If you don’t accept there is a God, then not only are you acting nonsensical, contradicting your beliefs, every time you (a) claim anyone is doing something wrong, but also every time you (b) view pain as anything other than another natural occurrence without being due justice or significance, (c) think people are equal,(d) with inherent value and (e) have inherent rights, (f) have objective purpose or meaning in life, (g) actually have free will, (h) or every time you believe your actions, thoughts, beliefs, or feelings, such as love, are controlled by “you”.   

 

If there is no moral law giver beyond humanity’s opinion, if people are not “endowed by their creator” with inherent equality, value and meaning (as the “Founding Fathers” of the United States recognized), and if there is nothing to you but your material (natural) body and brain, then (a) through (h) above are foolish beliefs.

 

Atheists in every field of study agree with this, nothing is truly right/wrong, good/bad, tragic, etc., just that a person may have a subjective repulsion toward it, or may have a liking toward it. 

 

As Dr. William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University states:  

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear, and I must say that these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposeful forces of any kind, no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be completely dead. That’s just all—that’s gonna be the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either (emphasis mine).

 

Professor of philosophy at Florida State University, Michael Ruse, adds: 

Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory (emphasis mine). I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, … and any deeper meaning is illusory.

 

And whether a person thinks something is horrible or great, it is just their opinion, with no possibility of being considered better or worse than another’s opposing opinion, as not only does true (objective) morality not exist, but also all thoughts and behaviors would be entirely controlled and determined anyway, because if nature is all there is, then all nature is determined by initial conditions and natural laws, so all atoms and energy in your brain and all their activity is entirely and always determined, you have no free will, thoughts, actions, or choices. 

 

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of helical structure of DNA, accurately in-line with the no-god belief notes that: “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules (emphasis mine).” (The Astonishing Hypothesis, 1994) 

 

Stephen Hawking observes: “Though we feel we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets.”

 

University of Oxford’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science, and biologist, Richard Dawkins provides the clear ramifications in a quote used earlier: 

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication,  . . . there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference (emphasis mine)… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

Provine, W.B., Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy? The Debate at Stanford University, William B. Provine (Cornell University) and Phillip E. Johnson (University of California, Berkeley), videorecording © 1994 Regents of the University of California. (See also: Origins Research 16(1):9,1994; arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm.)

Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269. 

Stephen Hawking, Grand Design, pp.31-32

Francis Crick, Michael Ruse, Stephen Hawking, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Alex Rosenberg, Jerry Coyne, Sam Harris, etc., the full realm of atheists in biology, physics, philosophy, psychology, etc.,  recognize …  We are meat robots, we have no more control over what we think or do than a rock rolling down a hill, as we are just a collection of molecules and motion described by natural laws. 

 

Do you believe your choice of what to wear, who to date, what to believe is entirely determined? If it is, even you reading this, and what you decide to make of it is determined, and meaningless.

 

While atheism has no happy ending, no silver lining, no comfort and hope for ultimate removal of pain and evil, no redeeming work of a Lord who can work all things together for good for those who love him, or good news of a Savior who demonstrated purpose and care for us – but only “blind pitiless indifference” – it would still be the best belief system to base your life upon and answer the problem of pain, except for a further thing it lacks: the comprehensive supporting evidence Christianity is endowed with.