GOD’S WORDS READING GOD’S OTHER BOOK GOD’S WORKS

The Problem of Suffering The Apparent Problem: There is a vast amount of human and animal suffering, some of it very intense. Its distribution appears capricious. Whatever purposes such suffering may serve, surely an omnipotent being could accomplish them without (much of) this suffering. Theodicies: Possible, morally permissible reasons God could have for permitting human or animal suffering of various kinds. The Apparent Problem: There is a vast amount of human and animal suffering, some of it very intense. Its distribution appears capricious. Whatever purposes such suffering may serve, surely an omnipotent being could accomplish them without (much of) this suffering. Theodicies: Possible, morally permissible reasons God could have for permitting human or animal suffering of various kinds.

Biblical Clues Just as the Bible is not a science textbook, it is also not a philosophical treatise. So it does not purport to offer a comprehensive explanation of suffering. But it does give the Christian a variety of clues that constitute part of an answer. Why it is legitimate to appeal to revelation in the defensive task of theodicy. Just as the Bible is not a science textbook, it is also not a philosophical treatise. So it does not purport to offer a comprehensive explanation of suffering. But it does give the Christian a variety of clues that constitute part of an answer. Why it is legitimate to appeal to revelation in the defensive task of theodicy.

Some Biblical Teachings Concerning Human Suffering Angelic and human free will, not God, as the ultimate source of evil and of human suffering. Creation a ‘risk’ that makes possible the great good of a free and loving relationship with God. Some suffering as God’s ‘megaphone,’ a prod to see the folly of sin and estrangement from God. Some suffering as ‘soul-making.’ Some suffering as just divine punishment. Life on earth a prelude to eternal life. Angelic and human free will, not God, as the ultimate source of evil and of human suffering. Creation a ‘risk’ that makes possible the great good of a free and loving relationship with God. Some suffering as God’s ‘megaphone,’ a prod to see the folly of sin and estrangement from God. Some suffering as ‘soul-making.’ Some suffering as just divine punishment. Life on earth a prelude to eternal life.

Challenges to Constructing a Theodicy from These Teachings Horrific evils must not be gratuitous, a means to goods that could be attained with significantly less suffering. Distribution of pain and suffering must ultimately be just. How much suffering is required to accomplish those ends? Effects on character of grave suffering are often bad: Sometimes suffering drives devout people from God. Some suffering appears to be soul-breaking. Freedom and responsibility come in degrees. Perhaps it would be worth limiting the scope of human freedom in order to minimize the damage of its misuse. Horrific evils must not be gratuitous, a means to goods that could be attained with significantly less suffering. Distribution of pain and suffering must ultimately be just. How much suffering is required to accomplish those ends? Effects on character of grave suffering are often bad: Sometimes suffering drives devout people from God. Some suffering appears to be soul-breaking. Freedom and responsibility come in degrees. Perhaps it would be worth limiting the scope of human freedom in order to minimize the damage of its misuse.

Assessing Arguments from Suffering for Atheism “The Reason”: aggregation of all plausible, partial explanations of instances of suffering. Let us assume for the sake of argument: Plausibly, The Reason is not a comprehensive explanation of the suffering we observe. Impressive speech vs. Reasoned argument “The Reason”: aggregation of all plausible, partial explanations of instances of suffering. Let us assume for the sake of argument: Plausibly, The Reason is not a comprehensive explanation of the suffering we observe. Impressive speech vs. Reasoned argument

Two Arguments from Suffering 1. (Probably), there is no reason that would justify God’s permitting a) …so much evil to occur. b) …horrendous evils to occur. 2. If God exists, there must be such a reason. 3. So, (probably) God does not exist. Q: What lies behind (1a) or (1b)? 1. (Probably), there is no reason that would justify God’s permitting a) …so much evil to occur. b) …horrendous evils to occur. 2. If God exists, there must be such a reason. 3. So, (probably) God does not exist. Q: What lies behind (1a) or (1b)?

Two Arguments from Suffering 0. We cannot see a reason that would justify God’s permitting a) …so much evil to occur. b) …horrendous evils to occur. So: 1. (Probably), there is no reason that would justify God’s permitting a) …so much evil to occur. b) …horrendous evils to occur. 0. We cannot see a reason that would justify God’s permitting a) …so much evil to occur. b) …horrendous evils to occur. So: 1. (Probably), there is no reason that would justify God’s permitting a) …so much evil to occur. b) …horrendous evils to occur.

Noseeum Inferences Noseeum-style Inference: If we don’t see ‘um when we look for ‘um, they (probably) ain’t there. Crucial Q: When are Noseeum Inferences plausible? A: Just in those cases when it is quite likely that we would see X if X were there. A plausible case: when I search the fridge for juice. An implausible case: when I search my backyard grass for tiny slugs from my bedroom window. Noseeum-style Inference: If we don’t see ‘um when we look for ‘um, they (probably) ain’t there. Crucial Q: When are Noseeum Inferences plausible? A: Just in those cases when it is quite likely that we would see X if X were there. A plausible case: when I search the fridge for juice. An implausible case: when I search my backyard grass for tiny slugs from my bedroom window.

Noseeum Inferences Noseeum-style Inference: If we don’t see ‘um, they (probably) ain’t there. Noseeum Inferences are plausible just in cases when it is quite likely that we would see X if X were there. Q: Is a noseeum inference plausible or implausible when we search for divine reasons for evil?? Note: not required that theist show conclusion is false; it is enough to give reasons to doubt the inference. Noseeum-style Inference: If we don’t see ‘um, they (probably) ain’t there. Noseeum Inferences are plausible just in cases when it is quite likely that we would see X if X were there. Q: Is a noseeum inference plausible or implausible when we search for divine reasons for evil?? Note: not required that theist show conclusion is false; it is enough to give reasons to doubt the inference.

Reasons to Doubt Noseeum Inference in the Arguments from Suffering Reason 1: Our minds are finite, God’s is infinite. Supposing God cannot have a reason that we don't see is like supposing a physicist can't have a reason for believing a theory because I can't understand what she says, or a chess grandmaster can't have a reason for making a move that strikes me as crazy. Reason 1: Our minds are finite, God’s is infinite. Supposing God cannot have a reason that we don't see is like supposing a physicist can't have a reason for believing a theory because I can't understand what she says, or a chess grandmaster can't have a reason for making a move that strikes me as crazy.

Reasons to Doubt Noseeum Inference in the Arguments from Suffering Reason 2: The extent and composition of the ‘territory’ we’re looking in (for a reason) is largely unknown to us. Our life on earth may be only a prelude to a much longer drama, and our heavenly life may involve goods we cannot envision and which are integrally connected to our earthly suffering. Furthermore, our place in an overall divine plan might be more limited than we think. There may be goods connected to beings quite unlike ourselves. Reason 2: The extent and composition of the ‘territory’ we’re looking in (for a reason) is largely unknown to us. Our life on earth may be only a prelude to a much longer drama, and our heavenly life may involve goods we cannot envision and which are integrally connected to our earthly suffering. Furthermore, our place in an overall divine plan might be more limited than we think. There may be goods connected to beings quite unlike ourselves.

Reasons to Doubt Noseeum Inference in the Arguments from Suffering Reason 3: Some kinds of goodness are in part a function of complexity. There may be goods involving enough complexity to be beyond our ken. Analogies: ‘Barney’ tune vs. Mozart/epic Springsteen ballads Child vs. Adult chess strategies McDonald’s vs. Gourmet meal Reason 3: Some kinds of goodness are in part a function of complexity. There may be goods involving enough complexity to be beyond our ken. Analogies: ‘Barney’ tune vs. Mozart/epic Springsteen ballads Child vs. Adult chess strategies McDonald’s vs. Gourmet meal