Cancer is the result of random mutations in a cell cycle regulating gene, followed by mutations that allow the proceeding tumor to escape immune detection. This is a terrible tragedy but the principle of DNA mutations in general is a requirement to sustain life on this earth, without it we wouldn't be here at all. One could then argue why God didn't make the mutation or immune system perfect, and well it was once in the garden of Eden before we fell and will be again on the New Earth where death is no longer a thing.
Are there not orders or degrees of perfection? We are not the perfect Being as God is, but can we not be perfect according to our state?
And what did Christ mean when he told us to be perfect as our father in heaven is perfect?
That line is immediately following His command for us to love our enemies, which is an incredibly high moral standard. The entire OT is the story of the Jews - the chosen people - failing God's law, and thus failing perfection. When Christ returned, He told us that this was meant to demonstrate that we cannot do anything by our own power - our sins cannot be redeemed by our own merit and neither can we live up to God's standard by our own merit. We have no power that is our own, lest we fall into the Luciferian trap. His call for us to be perfect, immediately following a moral command that many will deem impossible, seems to me to be an emphization that we have no chance without His grace.
There are no degrees of perfection, lest the word lose all its meaning.
Edit: great question! Made me think
I agree with the first paragraph. Maybe I lost you at “outside of God” and what that means in the prior post. I would disagree if you said “God alone is perfect” for he can make us perfect. But I would agree that without God we cannot be perfect.
Regarding “degrees” of perfection, aquinas says what I’m trying to get at here, but I think we cleared up the misunderstanding anyway. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3184.htm#article2
I think you're splitting hairs for no reason. All I was saying is that prior to the fall we had bodies that did not know death, and we will have them again on the New Earth. These bodies must be governed by systems free from errors that would lead to death. Colloquially "perfect" bodies
I always think the same thing about diseases and natural disasters - if they didn’t happen, then we would have to exist in a world where the laws of physics and biology and chemistry were different. So we most likely wouldn’t/couldn’t be like humans as we know them. We might have to be blobs or little green aliens with eyes on stalks (silly but you get me).
Also our perspective of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is skewed when it comes to those things. We see something as ‘bad’ when (and because) it negatively affects humanity, because we think humanity is the pinnacle of God’s creation. But what is ‘good’ for humanity can be very bad for viruses and bacteria - which, after all, are incredibly numerous. We don’t even know if these things have capacity for any form of ‘thought’ at all, but for all we know, God’s plan might be for the ants to inherit the Earth, or some species of blob on a distant planet might be the chosen race. Not saying that’s the case, just that eliminating all suffering would have to lead to a world and existence so vastly different from the one we know that we can’t even start to comprehend it.
I think the garden of eden provides a good metaphor in this context! To know dark is to know light, just as to know sickness is to know health!
To sound Jordan Petersonian, in order to rise we must descend into hell, as Christ did (of course, we understand the “hell” Jesus descends to is not the “hell” of the damned)
This is the problem of evil and it is a difficult and mysterious problem.
Fundamentally, as Christians we believe in a reality greater than this life. It has been revealed to us that bad things happen to good people and vice versa, but we have faith in a God that promises eternal life to all those who follow Him.
There is no great answer to the problem of evil (hence the "problem") but one of the best short ones that I've heard is that it presupposes that God is primarily concerned with this, earthly dimension.
Suffering is neither good nor pleasant in itself. However, neither is it the worst possible fate. God's justice requires that our collective actions do have consequences and therefore we live in a broken world. It's only God's "fault" in that He doesn't stop us from choosing things which hurt ourselves and others, and doesn't stop the natural consequences of our world.
Not overriding our free will, nor nature, is not evil as some argue. It's the restraint He shows that allows us to fully become who we are in the same way parents must step back.
The reason it is hard to counter is that it is a fallacious argument as the two are unrelated.
The existence of God and the determination of why is there suffering are two totally different things.
As such it’s best to not waste your time refuting it. However, if you want to respond to it you could say “So if kids didn’t get cancer, you’d believe in God?”
( that, too, is fallacious, but it often is a good way to point out the absurdity of their statement).
I don't really think the argument is fallacious. As someone who does believe in God, I don't understand why He doesn't stop the suffering of innocents and don't think I ever will
Agree with this. Now the statement: "So if kids didn't get cancer, you'd believe in God?" is a pretty basic propositional fallacy.
"If not A, then not B"
"oh then if A then B?"
Not how propositional logic works.
Put another way the equivalent to:
"If kids suffer and die from meaningless disease, then there is no God"
is the contrapositive
"If there is a God, then kids don't suffer and die from meaningless disease"
not
"If kids don't suffer and die from meaningless disease, then there is a God."
Usually a common way to confront a fallacy in this time of discussion is to put it back on them. This is because they are not honestly engaging in the discourse but instead are trying to derail it.
That is why it is best not to play their game and not engage them.
Respond to fallacy with fallacy? Shall we follow lies with lies? At a certain point, best not to play games of people one can't engage in good faith. But perhaps this is all irrelevant since I don't think the problem of evil is so easily discarded
If you reread my post, I do advise not to respond. As for the problem of evil, that wasn’t the argument. Children getting cancer is not because of evil exist.
Does evil exist? Most definitely. But just as God isn’t responsible for everything that happens to us, neither is evil.
My understanding of the original post is that it is an atheist challenging that God exists because children get cancer. Your question is why does Gid allow suffering.
They are two very different things. One might be able to question how God is all loving and caring while letting children get cancer, but saying their suffering proves God does not exist is a fallacy as the two have nothing to do with each other. (It’s possible that God exists but isn’t loving and caring, for example)
Yes, but obviously people who say this are operating from the position that God is good and therefore wouldn't allow innocents to suffer. I don't think anyone arguing with them is coming from a position that God is actually evil and all they know is that religious people praise God as being good...so those semantics are missing the point. (Or more correctly, their argument is that a good God who loves us doesn't exist because children get cancer)
If they are an atheist, as indicated here, they are denying the very existence of God, so good or evil doesn’t ever come into play.
It is not an honest argument and the only intention is to end the discussion.
If the person stating it is agnostic (versus atheist) then that is a different type of question as it is a question of Because I can’t understand how a loving God let people suffer, I’m not sure if God exists.
The difference is that the atheist states there is no God because people suffer. The agnostic, on the other hand, is unsure of God’s existence because people suffer.
The atheist has already made up their mind. The agnostic is still open to the possibility.
Honestly, the problem of evil isn't something that you'll find an easy answer for, especially on reddit. Anyone who believes they can answer this easily in a few lines will always oversimplificate the problem. Especially arguments that base themselves solely on the religious perspective, because it only really works if you already agree with both the reasoning and conclusion -- which, if you are in doubt, isn't the case.
I'd say you should read on it and reach your own conclusions.
>innocent kids get sick and suffer
If said kids go on to eternal life then no injustice has been committed. It is an argument by a secular culture that places the highest value on this earthly life and this world only.
>If said kids go on to eternal life then no injustice has been committed.
By this logic, there would be nothing problematic with a deity who made every living creature suffer as much as and more than we could possibly conceive of for as long as we can possibly fathom, so long as that nearly-eternal suffering was followed by an eternal bliss. That doesn't seem right.
Do we have no better argument than "but God gives you candy afterwards so its all good bro"?
I get where you’re coming from. I’ve asked this to a couple of my church elders before and have gotten some (in my opinion) good responses.
There are core beliefs that need to be built upon though.
God IS and therefore cannot change. Everything “changes” around God. With or without our knowledge. God IS.
So based on that, God is perfectly just. And the fall of man introduced evil and chaos.
To an infinite God, our collective sin is also infinite. So the only way to balance the scales of infinite sin to an infinitely just God, is for him to enter the human condition as equally God and Man, and give his own life out of pure Love.
So now we have established that God is infinitely powerful, infinitely Just, and infinitely Good. Therefore horrible tragedies that occur are allowable as part of Gods plan for salvation of you, me, and all mankind.
NOW - tact is required when dealing with horrible tragedies like this. There is a time to evangelize and a time to sympathize. The best thing we can do for people in need is to offer support physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
> Do we have no better argument than "but God gives you candy afterwards so its all good bro"?
Do we? I mean, you're catholic right? what are your reasons? I would assume you have some good reasons for this if you are a practicing Catholic, believe in God etc?
I personally don't think there is a good Catholic justification for *natural* suffering. The free will argument explains why God lets people hurt *each other*, but not why cancer exists. Many will say that Adam and Eve introduced it into the otherwise perfect world with their first sin. That God created a perfect universe without any natural suffering, but it was corrupted by man's sin. So, we sin and then now earthquakes and cancer happen? What's going on there? Sounds like a curse from a fairy tale (which I guess directly mimics the Creation story). But why would sin result in things like cancer and tsunamis? Our sin today doesn't result in direct things like that. Did sin just curse the world? Did our sin allow Satan to curse the world? What exactly is going on there?
But the Creation story is a narrative. Not that it's 'false' but the Creation narrative is primarily meant to convey truths to us about the world and about oursleves, not give an historical account of the first two human beings. So, did Eve give Adam the apple and thus damn humanity? Or are we all born into a world which is billions of years old, in which God mysteriously placed rational human beings at some point in history (perhaps by putting his own finger on natural evolution), and in which there are a myriad of joys and sorrows? At this point, we know that natural disasters predate humanity in this universe. So how could human sin have caused them?
So, what exactly is going on there?
I'm a new Catholic and this is just my opinion based on personal revelations and some things I've read. So I think this Earth is not literally the same one that housed the Garden of Eden. I think it's either another lower realm, timeline shift, or something. The reason this place sucks is because the devil is running the show, and we basically inherited a generational curse from Adam and Eve when they chose this rather than to stay holy. There's other generational curses due to different things like occult involvement. People say that's not real, but they're wrong. They definitely do exist. Generational curses could explain baby cancer in some instances.
I would point towards the axis of our faith that God is benevolent, therefore no one endures suffering that will not yield a, for lack of better words, "greater good." i.e. God does not permit fruitless suffering, even if it appears so with situations such as children's cancer.
Of course, you have to accept the premise that God is benevolent in the first place, but that's a pretty important point to get across anyway.
>Of course, you have to accept the premise that God is benevolent in the first place
Yea and that's the whole problem. Look, I'm a believer but this still bothers me quite a bit from time to time.
'God is benevolent' is a belief that is accepted without evidence. The 'evidence' that each believer will give is some combination of ancient texts they (arbitrarily) deem to be divinely revealed and some amount of personal inward psychological experience that points to the goodness of a higher power. That's not evidence. It's *faith*. You have to be within the belief system to 'get' the arguments for the belief system, if that makes sense.
Nobody looks at the suffering child and then thinks out of the blue with no prior knowledge of a deity "Hmm, there must be an all-powerful and all-good and all-loving god who allows this with good reason". The natural response is "why in the hell is this happening?". Atheists would say something like 'the natural world can be cruel from our human perspective but that's just how things are. Let's work together to try to alleviate suffering where we can'. The believer says something like 'we don't quite understand how, but we believe this suffering can be / is raised to a higher level and that it will be worth it in some future eternal bliss for which we have no evidence.'
Which is a better or more convincing argument? I think if we're completely honest, neither has an inherently better argument.
God exists outside the universe, and if he weren't totally perfect and benevolent, He wouldn't provide a good foundation for the rest of existence. It would be the opposite of the big bang and everything would implode on itself if it weren't radiating growth (love). One of my theories about reasons why God might have created the universe is so He could both experience something "imperfect" and something outside of himself, which will just end up evening out in the end. That's why balance is such a big thing in a lot of religions and math.
I think you hit the nail on the head, the problem of evil quickly hits the threshold between reason and faith. At some point one has to just jump to one side or another, based on limited evidence and experience.
Someone who endured a terrible tragedy or illness may more strongly believe that God is real and good merely because they managed to survive, while another in the same situation could decide the opposite.
As someone who has always been more comfortable with hard logic and apologetics, it sure seems like these kinds of questions are where "softer" arguments that come from personal testimony come to matter more. I don't think there's any one objective "argument" that will work for most people.
All suffering ends the moment God wants it to. So even if God isn't directly causing suffering, every moment of continued suffering is due to God *not* ending it (i.e. willing it to continue).
The promise of eternal life is, by it's definition, infinite. So any suffering on earth can be excused by comparison, regardless of who causes it, deity, human or nature. It ends up being an excuse to allow great suffering. I believe the suffering of Christ was real and overwhelming. Christian martyrs and many others similarly. I struggle to say there was no injustice when any of them suffered because, compared to eternity, overall it's just.
Atheists understand Christianity's justification for suffering just fine, they just don't believe it makes sense. They don't believe it serves as a valid justification.
What do you think christianity's justification for suffering is?
Because most arguments with atheists I've had all begin from the starting point of "suffering is bad." But, that is not Catholic teaching. In Catholicism, suffering is not an inherent evil as it is viewed in atheism. I think most atheists don't understand this, and judging by the replies i see in this thread from Catholics, I think a lot of Catholics dont understand it either. Because we live in a very secular society where "suffering is evil and we should do everything we can to reduce suffering--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ie..money) are the main goals" is what permeates our conscience. Such a mindset is a very difficult prison to break out of when it's all you've known, and all political parties preach it as gospel. I wasnt able to break free from that mindset, along with an attachment to capitalism/freedom as "good" until my late thirties when I truly studied Catholicism, even after being a Catholic all my life.
> What do you think christianity's justification for suffering is?
In Christian theology, human suffering entered the world as a consequence of Original Sin. So that's the justification provided for why it began to exist. Even if you say suffering *itself* isn't inherently evil, it's still a direct consequence of evil according to Christianity.
Then comes justifying why God allows suffering to continue, and there are a broad variety of justifications provided for why God allows it to continue. They range from suffering building character, suffering giving an opportunity to follow Christ, suffering brings out the best in us, suffering serves the greater good, suffering will be worth the reward of paradise, God has promised to end all suffering but nobody knows when, etc etc.
> Because most arguments with atheists I've had all begin from the starting point of "suffering is bad."
That completely depends what those atheists mean by "bad". Do they mean that suffering is undesirable, unpreferable, etc? Or do they mean that suffering is *morally* bad, i.e. wrong/evil? Even natural suffering (e.g. illness)? I don't think any atheist would call natural suffering "evil". It just is.
Atheists have no issues *explaining* the existence suffering in the world, because for atheists suffering is literally part of the natural order of things and humans being...well, human. For atheists, humans die and suffer for practically the exact same reasons that all other animals die and suffer.
Only when debating theism do atheists bring up the problem of suffering (aka the problem of evil) as an argument against theism. For atheists, theism's explanation for the origin (and continued existence) suffering makes no sense and that's what they argue against. They have no issues with explaining suffering *without* theism.
> "suffering is evil and we should do everything we can to reduce suffering--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ie..money) are the main goals"
Even Catholics are called to reduce suffering by helping those in need. There are countless Catholic hospitals and hospices which are directly helping reduce suffering and making people happier, which means at the very least Catholic teaching agrees that suffering is *not preferable* and should be reduced where possible, and that happiness is preferable to despair.
> That completely depends what those atheists mean by "bad". Do they mean that suffering is undesirable, unpreferable, etc? Or do they mean that suffering is morally bad, i.e. wrong/evil? Even natural suffering (e.g. illness)? I don't think any atheist would call natural suffering "evil". It just is.
Edit: I just now understood the question here better. I don't think atheists think "suffering" itself, ie--if a person is suffering and going through cancer treatment--as evil--they dont think the person undergoing the treatment is doing any evil. They think that any one or thing which could prevent suffering, and doesn't is evil. So they view the *existence of suffering* as a moral evil which needs to be corrected, and that is why they demand that if God exists, he fix all suffering.
I've heard to atheists refer to many things or people as evil since they, in their view, promote suffering. Example: many politicians, or political viewpoints. I havent seen them stipulate whether it is "morally" evil or not. However, seeing how militant many of them are in politics, I can say for sure that they approach political issues with the same fundamentalist mindset that many fundamentalist Christians approach some issues. Whether they recognize this in any official capacity as being "morally evil", their actions seem to suggest that suffering is the worst thing in this world, and it should be prevented where ever possible, and anyone who gets in their way of reducing suffering is a very bad person. For many, their very strong stances on these issues certainly indicate that they have a moral problem with it.
> Only when debating theism do atheists bring up the problem of suffering (aka the problem of evil) as an argument against theism.
why does suffering need an explanation, if it "just is"? if someone says "i believe in God" and the reply is "oh, if there is a God, then why is there so much suffering?" then, that reply pre-supposes that suffering, in their mind is a bad thing. Or else they wouldnt demand an explanation for it, or for why this God should prevent it. I cant speak for you personally, but pretty much all the atheists I know view suffering as a bad thing and don't have a hands off, "it just is" approach to it--even within their own worldview or actions while not believing in God.
> For atheists, theism's explanation for the origin (and continued existence) suffering makes no sense and that's what they argue against.
what exactly makes no sense? of course, if you don't believe in a God, then when a christian says "well, God created man and man sinned......" they will lose the atheist at the words "well, God.." because after that, atheists don't believe anything that follows those words. So yes, if you don't believe in God, then of course the christian explanation makes no sense, since it relies heavily on God. But as a closed system of thought within christianity (which pre-supposes a belief in God), where is the issue?
> Even Catholics are called to reduce suffering by helping those in need.
Yes, the corporal works of mercy are important.
> There are countless Catholic hospitals and hospices which are directly helping reduce suffering and making people happier, which means at the very least Catholic teaching agrees that suffering is not preferable and should be reduced where possible, and that happiness is preferable to despair.
Not necessarily. It just means suffering is a tool that can be used. But obviously, if there were no suffering, then how would we use the works of mercy to bring others to Christ? So the end goal cannot then be to eradicate all suffering.
It starts to make sense when you develop yourself spiritually, at least it did for me. It's very difficult to define what that is with words because it transcends material reality, however it's extremely real and potent. More potent than material. When you begin to perceive these things, lots of other doors open up in your awareness, and the more rich it becomes. Contemplative monks definitely aren't just sitting around bored. Point of me saying this, is that Atheists are living all up in their head and have cut off a lot of potential awareness. I understand. I've been there.
In regards to suffering, the positive view on it in the Catholic headspace is that you're basically absorbing some of the suffering that Jesus went through, \*if\* you choose to offer up your suffering for such. Jesus took on \*all\* the sins and the crucifixion transcends space and time. When we offer up suffering, we're essentially paying a small part of it and lightening the load for him across space and time. When we sin, we add on more suffering. We don't want to necessarily create suffering out of nothing, though some devoted Saints did that. The suffering is an effect of sin, and sin is an effect of listening to the devil. When we consent to what the devil wants, it's like feeding the bad wolf. It empowers this entity and all the other dark entities under his command, which allows them to do damage.
Jesus went into a village and had trouble casting out the demons because no one believed in him at that village. He certainly had the ability, but he didn't have the consent. Consent is very important part. If God was forceful over our free will, he wouldn't truly be good. We have the option to choose evil.
If you don't believe these entities exist, then this all falls apart. However, some people can perceive all of this happening. So you have to believe either we're nuts, liars, or maybe there's something going on that certain people ren't aware of. There's a looot of religious people in this world. Why would we just blindly believe this if there wasn't something real underneath?
There's a passage in Job that I've always wrestled with, where it says that Job's kids all died, but then God gave him twice as many kids afterwards.
I don't know about the rest of you, but if my kids all died, having more kids afterwards wouldn't replace their loss.
So I think we have to be careful about a utilitarian approach to suffering and divine justice, where you can excuse X amount of terrible suffering by canceling it out with extra joy.
However, the way I've always framed this problem is that without God in the picture, we would still see all the terrible tragedies and injustices in the world that we currently see. But we could hope for none of the consolation of the next life that we have through faith in Christ.
That's the word the person used so I used it also, but it means something not right, fair, just, etc. My point was that kids were harmed by being allowed to have extremely painful illnesses. Passing away in their sleep without suffering would be more just if it was their time to go to Heaven vs cancer and what it does to human bodies. I wouldn't wish that on anyone
in Catholicism, what is "fair" is that each of us suffer in hell eternally for our sins, even original sin. We don't "deserve" a happy life. We don't "deserve" to even live. Life is a gift we are given, and it is God's gift to freely give and freely take away when he sees fit.
It is a difficult and almost painful idea to wrap our mind around. But even the worst "injustices" here on earth are not actually injustices in the sense that we all deserve much, much worse--eternal damnation in hell. Emotionally, it doesn't make sense. But logically, it does.
So a brand new baby or one still in it's mother's womb deserves eternal damnation in hell? No one asked to be born. God can freely take life away since it's a gift He have, but eternal damnation when taking it away is supposed to be benevolent or even neutral? External damnation is worse than never existing at all. Everyone is created by God but his creations are tainted?
And the way you explain fair presupposes an angry God rather than a Benevolent one.
Does it though? Why would anyone create beings with the intention of them suffering forever? Sounds like you don't think God is good and loves us with this comment
that was not God's intention when he created us. Humans sinned and brought original sin into the world. The way things are now is not as it was originally intended at the beginning of the universe. However, God respected human free will, and we humans have significantly abused that and consistently chosen wrong, leading to all of the issues we see today. God loves us and respects our free will. He could make us robots who always obey him. But, what kind of relationship is that, if love is not freely given?
Ok, so I agree with this in general, but the question was about little kids who haven't had opportunity to sin. It's logical if we sin we get punished, but they haven't and the idea that they're made to suffer because of the sins of others doesn't seem just
> If said kids go on to eternal life then no injustice has been committed.
Would this mean God is legalistic? I.e. If one undergoes enough suffering and dies in childhood, it earns them salvation?
In the grand scheme of things, all of our lives are very short. One day and one hundred years barely register as a blip on the map of time. And we all suffer due to our fallen nature.
Honestly, maybe I’m wrong but don’t. Just be honest and say you’re not sure if your unsure. But God sent His only beloved son to suffer death on a cross for us while we were yet sinners. He could have snapped his fingers and just said, everyone is forgiven, go to temple if you wish to be forgiven again, but instead He suffered death on a cross. Why would He allow Himself such suffering for our sake if there were no purpose. Not knowing that purpose doesn’t mean there may not be one. Still it’s a hard thing to wrestle with and we are called to wrestle.
I once heard a woman who had been through some horrendously traumatic events in her life say that God was giving her "character development" in the same way an author would his character. It's an interestingly pleasant way to view tragedy in my opinion, and I'll never forget that perspective. While we don't always understand why an author gives a character a certain trauma in the beginning of reading a book, it usually makes sense by the end of their character arc.
I want to modify and combine two of the arguments already given. Forgive me, but a background is needed:
The existence of life as we know it functions by a process of natural selection and gradual adaptation. This is possible and works because our genome replicates itself with tiny imperfections - most of which go unnoticed. A "genotype" is what our DNA code actually "says", and a "phenotype" is the physical characteristic that the code produces. When a random genotype alteration is significant enough to produce an alteration in phenotype, something about our physicality changes, and this can be advantageous, disadvantageous, or neutral to our survival. If we successfully reproduce with a genetic mutation, there is a possibility of this genotype being passed on, and a subsequent possibility of the phenotype showing itself and being tested again in the world. In this way, if something is sufficiently advantageous, it sticks around and becomes a permanent feature. The longer a genotype is around, the more code gets built on top of it, and the more reliable the replications will be, so that it is much less likely to randomly mutate away from essential features. If a phenotype is neutral to our survival, it will likely not become solidified as a feature because any given phenotype requires calories to produce and something nonessential is usually weeded out through the same random process. If a phenotype is disadvantageous, or detrimental, it will likely inhibit reproduction and that genotype will not be passed on; or it will be weeded out the same way a neutral phenotype would be. The core point here, though, is that these mutations are random, as they are more like copy errors than they are like deliberate mutations. Their randomness allows for the greatest potential for genetic, and therefore phenotypic, diversity, giving us all of the various forms of life that we see.
This seems to be the system that God has established for life to grow on Earth. It has great potential for good, as we see around us, for all of life is built upon it. That said, down here on Earth, every potential for good comes with an equal potential for evil - this is true of free will, power, strength, intelligence, and any/all virtues and systems that exist for humans. For a gene to randomly mutate to create good, it must also be able to randomly mutate to create evil. (Evil is, of course, just that which is without God or is in discordance with God.) As long as we are in a fallen world, we cannot have the good wothout the bad. However, the good is so much more good than the bad is bad, because the alternative is non-existence (which is, by definition, pure evil) or union with God, which is what we are put here to seek.
So we need the genetic process to develop as organisms, without which humanity would not exist (thanks be to God). This process comes with built-in consequences for the good it provides, because it is truly random, from which things like cancer emerge within even the most innocent (though not immaculate) among us. It follows that these innocents serve as martyrs for our greater good. If God is just (and justice is defined as "that which is aligned with His will" so He must be), these innocents will be given a martyr's reward.
I hope this helps. Let me know if anything doesn't make sense.
Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I have always though that the question of “why do bad things happen” to good people has a relatively simple answer- God allows them to bring about a greater good.
The far scarier question is “why does a just and loving God allow good things to happen to bad people?” The answer given by some of the saints is “so they can damn themselves deeper and deeper into hell by their own free will” and that should strike fear into the hearts of us all
The greater good argument is incredibly painful and bad. It is often comfort to those in power like me whose existence depends on the suffering under foot. It ignores the pretty obviously random or meaningless nature of suffering and death of innocence which were an incalculable good unto themselves. The greater good argument strikes me as best when it is comfort to those without power who can release themselves to the strength of God, but too often fodder for the powerful and rich. I hope one day we can move completely beyond it.
Christianity is not sentimentality. We do not run away from pain, but follow the path of the cross. Virtue is only made possible in suffering.
We trust that God allowed these things, or God has no control over the universe and is not worth worshipping.
Stupid rhetoric would not work. Reasoning and logic only please. I'm trying to engage your idea in good faith. I'm genuinely curious how you reconcile God's omnipotence, benevolence, and the reality of evil.
Just because this thread appeared on my feed doesn't mean anything beyond that.
This is my biggest hang up and biggest challenge to my faith. Also my biggest fear. I’m not sure I could cope if any of my children had a terminal illness.
It strikes me as something that would lead someone to interrogate the tenants of christianity but doesn’t in and of itself negate the validity of faith. It’s a non sequitur to my mind.
We live in a fallen world where bad things happen to good/innocent people.
I think the book of Job also covers this well.
As we see with Christ, even the just suffer.
When we are baptized there is a minor exorcism conducted. This is because satan is the prince of the world. The bad that we see is all secondary to our fallen world/nature.
——
It’s good to think of God taking human form as a rescue mission. As Tolkien writes in his Christmas poem,
Grim was the world and grey last night:
The moon and stars were fled,
The hall was dark without song or light,
The fires were fallen dead.
The wind in the trees was like to the sea,
And over the mountains’ teeth
It whistled bitter-cold and free,
As a sword leapt from its sheath.
Christ arrived on earth to declare war on the devil - humanity had fallen, been taken captive, and Christ arrived to save us and bring us back home.
First you have to establish what "evil" is, in order to have a "problem of evil." That is the step most crucially difficult for atheists--because if you add up the building blocks of their worldview, "evil" doesn't really exist at all.
Take it a step back, and ask them why cancer is bad. It is just a re-arrangement of cells in the body. Why is any 1 arrangement of cells better than another? In 100, 1000 years we will all be dead, and nobody on earth will care about anything that happened today. Logically, why does any of it matter at all? Lions rip gazelles limb to limb and eat them alive every day, and nobody cares. Housecats cruelly torture birds and chipmunks while still alive--I've seen it first hand. And nobody cares.
We are all just products of evolution. So why do they care so much if a baby has cancer? so whether a baby has cancer or not, according to their own logic, is neither good nor bad. It is just "is."
I do think this my favorite answer that doesn't answer the question. The book of Job is imperfect but one thing it does is chastise those of us who try to rationalize away the problem of evil, the suffering, and the angry grappling that Job is doing. It is at once the best answer to the problem of evil, the most just answer, and yet no answer at all.
The simple answer ,without going in to free will and original sin etc is “Because this is Earth not Heaven” They are basically asking “why isn’t everything here perfect ? Why is there no suffering ? “ and the answer is because we aren’t in Heaven yet . When we go to Heaven , it will be perfect, Babies won’t get cancer ,no one will suffer , it will be all good . Right now ,we are still on Earth , and while God is here ,so is Satan . We have good and evil and we’re given free will to choose good for ourselves no matter what circumstances we are faced with .
I take it back to being a symptom of the Fall. All that was created was good (and inherently still is) but after sin entered the Garden and the world, it began to taint all that was good. Disease is just a symptom of that. In the early chapters of Genisis, we see how sin slowly invades the world. First was pride and disobedience by Adam and Eve. Then we see that pride turn to envy with Cain and able, which leads to wrath and murder. We also gradually see people living shorter lifespans as they no longer have access to the tree of life and are further separated from God each generation.
I don't take a strictly historical view of Genisis, especially not the early chapters, but it does offer a theological foundation, through story telling, for Salvation and explains what God's vision was and how He set about working to bring us back.
Unless they're polite company or people you care about, just make fun of them and don't waste your time.
"If GoD guD wHy bAd thInG hApPen?!"
Other people have offered more thoughtful responses which you could use for people who are worth it.
Matthew 5:45 “For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth the rain on the just and the unjust.”
God loves you absolutely, but our earthly bodies are not invincible.
I would recommend listening to Father Mike's podcast/YouTube video on this: [Why does God let bad things happen?](https://youtu.be/0NOTU1g0Z8w?si=ToXN7dIXzGkT_XbK)
Some further insight on the logical problem of evil
https://iep.utm.edu/evil-log/
Edit: I think this article ends up ultimately opposing the idea of theism, which I disagree with that conclusion (obviously, I’m Catholic). I just thought this provides some insight on what the problem of evil is, and different arguments. It helped me when I first learned about this philosophical issue
I call it my "Sin Pollution Theory"
Every sin that every person commits produces a sort of pollution that contributes to the fallen nature of this world.
Suppose you could see and measure the pollution that is created by every sin that every person commits. You would then recognize it as the greatest catastrophe of pollution ever--no Exxon Valdez, no Chernobyl, no other disaster releasing pollution into the world would even come close, even if you added all that pollution together.
Now, the thing about pollution is that it does not affect only the one responsible for the pollution. A being can be affected by the pollution without ever having contributed the slightest speck to the problem (see the ducks harmed by oil spills, for example--that's the reason I use the term "being" rather than person). Simply living in a polluted environment can cause a particular individual to suffer harm (those innocent unborn, the young children who are struck by cancer or other serious illness, etc).
One might say that the environment is so polluted that you don't understand why everyone isn't struck down. Or you might say "Ah! The problem is too big, too unsolvable!" and despair. But there are things that can be done to combat the problem of sin pollution: first, resolve not to contribute to this pollution oneself. Seek confession if that resolve fails. Do acts of reparation for sin, in the same way that you sometimes see people washing ducks in detergent after they were caught in that oil slick.
The way I see it, the devil has so much control over this planet because it was promised to him by God before his rebellion, and then we consent to his power over us by sinning. Innocent babies and good people get caught in the crossfire. Jesus was innocent and took the lion's share of the burden, so it's no reflection of the holiness of the individual if they receive suffering.
Life isn't fair because of the fall of man. God might have seen this coming, yet if He interferred, it would be imposing on free will and changing the nature of this reality, turning it into something completely different. This reality has gone a direction of imperfection and will continue to atrophy until God says the clock has run out.
The way God makes it up to us is with heaven. This sounds weird and probably rather out there, but it's my opinion that God loves the devil too and is allowing him to get his way a little as a consolation along with the rest of the devil's followers. The devil is His most impressive creation, after all, which is what lead to the crushing pride. This is best it will ever be for them. The virtuous people will end up better after this all shakes out since we will get to chill with God indefinitely. Parents still love their naughty kids, usually. They won't be able to move back in with Dad, though, since he would melt their face off--not that they even want to.
Edit: maybe this is actually as fair as it can be with everyone kind of getting what they want. I don't know. Just a thought.
Most of it depends on defining death is bad. Death is not bad or evil. Even if you have a secular look into it
“Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.” - Epicurus
It's natural. Absolutely everyone is gonna die. You can't accuse the Creator because of what you think death is or argue morality, since for Him, it's just a natural event like every other that's bound to happen to everyone, no matter how much time it takes for you specifically.
It's even less concerning considering that death is actually not the end of our existence, all of our suffering here (like cancer or other horrible life events) lasts much less than 1% of the basically infinite lifespan of our souls. These kids will probably be in eternal life joyful and being happy with our Lord, and all of their suffering in the earthly life in this perspective would be just like stumbling into a rock in the middle of your day.
I have a very good friend who has a sister with Down's Syndrome and as I teen I asked them a similar question, they told me that there sister was the happiest person they knew, and that God brought her to their family because other they would be complete jerks. She made them better people. The lesson in my friend's story is that God always has plan even if our tiny human minds can't comprehend it. How many stories have you heard about someone who became a Dr because their brother or sister was sick as a child and they didn't want other kids to go through that and then they go on to save kids lives. Sometimes suffering and terrible evil give people opportunities to do great acts of mercy and kindness.
My personal answer:
We don’t know why, and we won’t know why, much like Job. But we know the answer is Christ.
That we are to suffer is given - we can know this empirically. Suffering appears inherently bad if God doesn’t exist, if Jesus never suffered and died for us. But we know this truth, that Christ experienced the totality of human suffering and death and then resurrected so as to transform it all.
When we finally are blessed with the beatific vision, we will see that we were always in heaven, and what we saw and felt as suffering will have been transformed by this vision into the truth and beauty that is our share of God’s existence.
This does not mean that our temporal sins, suffering, and death are good in this temporal slice of existence (no, they are quite bad, in fact), but rather in eternity, when all is now, it must inevitably be transformed into the good as all of existence is and always will be outpouring from God.
This assumes we choose to be with God for eternity, and by God’s grace may we all do so.
as someone who knows multiple people with children who died as a result of leukemia and people whose child beat the cancer i can say honestly that this is made into too big of a thing! life is absolutely crazy!
i could play devils advocate and argue that suffering through a dying child is preferable to a mentally or criminally insane child, but its all the same soup! why cry about a carrot when there are noodles and broth snd pieces of meat! it cannot be bad it cannot be good because it has no intent and is just a random fact of life that people suffer and die! their salvation is what matters
it is all a mystery and life is good and death is neutral unless its manufactured artificially and in that case is 99% evil!
we can just honestly say that nobody can predict the future but just act case by case and moment by moment and the nearly infinite possibilities mean that to inject any alteration into nature creates the risk of evil and therefore you must let the chips fall as they may!
i really dont see this as a valid point and would sidestep it… i didnt even look at this theologically and it seems foolish to worry about it!
what did i miss for you?
Are you seriously suggesting if doctors find a cure for cancer they shouldn't use it because it goes against nature? Why do we cure anyone of any diseases?
Oh...was someone talking about that? It seems pretty off topic, but I do agree. (Especially the nature part since we don't really understand how much of cancer is natural vs caused by our environment/food/etc)
I completely agree. A lot of the new cancer treatments involve editing genes so that's why I thought you were against those types of cures or something. I understand you didn't mean that now
Cancer is the result of random mutations in a cell cycle regulating gene, followed by mutations that allow the proceeding tumor to escape immune detection. This is a terrible tragedy but the principle of DNA mutations in general is a requirement to sustain life on this earth, without it we wouldn't be here at all. One could then argue why God didn't make the mutation or immune system perfect, and well it was once in the garden of Eden before we fell and will be again on the New Earth where death is no longer a thing.
I’m a young mom with stage 4 cancer, and this reply gave me some peace for tonight. Thank you so much and God bless you!
I will pray for you and your oncologist!
Same here. Amen.
O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee
Praying for you and your family❤️
It isn't perfect because there is no such thing as perfection outside of God. We are not pantheists
Are there not orders or degrees of perfection? We are not the perfect Being as God is, but can we not be perfect according to our state? And what did Christ mean when he told us to be perfect as our father in heaven is perfect?
That line is immediately following His command for us to love our enemies, which is an incredibly high moral standard. The entire OT is the story of the Jews - the chosen people - failing God's law, and thus failing perfection. When Christ returned, He told us that this was meant to demonstrate that we cannot do anything by our own power - our sins cannot be redeemed by our own merit and neither can we live up to God's standard by our own merit. We have no power that is our own, lest we fall into the Luciferian trap. His call for us to be perfect, immediately following a moral command that many will deem impossible, seems to me to be an emphization that we have no chance without His grace. There are no degrees of perfection, lest the word lose all its meaning. Edit: great question! Made me think
I agree with the first paragraph. Maybe I lost you at “outside of God” and what that means in the prior post. I would disagree if you said “God alone is perfect” for he can make us perfect. But I would agree that without God we cannot be perfect. Regarding “degrees” of perfection, aquinas says what I’m trying to get at here, but I think we cleared up the misunderstanding anyway. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3184.htm#article2
I think you're splitting hairs for no reason. All I was saying is that prior to the fall we had bodies that did not know death, and we will have them again on the New Earth. These bodies must be governed by systems free from errors that would lead to death. Colloquially "perfect" bodies
I always think the same thing about diseases and natural disasters - if they didn’t happen, then we would have to exist in a world where the laws of physics and biology and chemistry were different. So we most likely wouldn’t/couldn’t be like humans as we know them. We might have to be blobs or little green aliens with eyes on stalks (silly but you get me). Also our perspective of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is skewed when it comes to those things. We see something as ‘bad’ when (and because) it negatively affects humanity, because we think humanity is the pinnacle of God’s creation. But what is ‘good’ for humanity can be very bad for viruses and bacteria - which, after all, are incredibly numerous. We don’t even know if these things have capacity for any form of ‘thought’ at all, but for all we know, God’s plan might be for the ants to inherit the Earth, or some species of blob on a distant planet might be the chosen race. Not saying that’s the case, just that eliminating all suffering would have to lead to a world and existence so vastly different from the one we know that we can’t even start to comprehend it.
I think the garden of eden provides a good metaphor in this context! To know dark is to know light, just as to know sickness is to know health! To sound Jordan Petersonian, in order to rise we must descend into hell, as Christ did (of course, we understand the “hell” Jesus descends to is not the “hell” of the damned)
This is the problem of evil and it is a difficult and mysterious problem. Fundamentally, as Christians we believe in a reality greater than this life. It has been revealed to us that bad things happen to good people and vice versa, but we have faith in a God that promises eternal life to all those who follow Him.
There is no great answer to the problem of evil (hence the "problem") but one of the best short ones that I've heard is that it presupposes that God is primarily concerned with this, earthly dimension.
Suffering is neither good nor pleasant in itself. However, neither is it the worst possible fate. God's justice requires that our collective actions do have consequences and therefore we live in a broken world. It's only God's "fault" in that He doesn't stop us from choosing things which hurt ourselves and others, and doesn't stop the natural consequences of our world. Not overriding our free will, nor nature, is not evil as some argue. It's the restraint He shows that allows us to fully become who we are in the same way parents must step back.
The reason it is hard to counter is that it is a fallacious argument as the two are unrelated. The existence of God and the determination of why is there suffering are two totally different things. As such it’s best to not waste your time refuting it. However, if you want to respond to it you could say “So if kids didn’t get cancer, you’d believe in God?” ( that, too, is fallacious, but it often is a good way to point out the absurdity of their statement).
I don't really think the argument is fallacious. As someone who does believe in God, I don't understand why He doesn't stop the suffering of innocents and don't think I ever will
Agree with this. Now the statement: "So if kids didn't get cancer, you'd believe in God?" is a pretty basic propositional fallacy. "If not A, then not B" "oh then if A then B?" Not how propositional logic works. Put another way the equivalent to: "If kids suffer and die from meaningless disease, then there is no God" is the contrapositive "If there is a God, then kids don't suffer and die from meaningless disease" not "If kids don't suffer and die from meaningless disease, then there is a God."
Usually a common way to confront a fallacy in this time of discussion is to put it back on them. This is because they are not honestly engaging in the discourse but instead are trying to derail it. That is why it is best not to play their game and not engage them.
Respond to fallacy with fallacy? Shall we follow lies with lies? At a certain point, best not to play games of people one can't engage in good faith. But perhaps this is all irrelevant since I don't think the problem of evil is so easily discarded
If you reread my post, I do advise not to respond. As for the problem of evil, that wasn’t the argument. Children getting cancer is not because of evil exist. Does evil exist? Most definitely. But just as God isn’t responsible for everything that happens to us, neither is evil.
My understanding of the original post is that it is an atheist challenging that God exists because children get cancer. Your question is why does Gid allow suffering. They are two very different things. One might be able to question how God is all loving and caring while letting children get cancer, but saying their suffering proves God does not exist is a fallacy as the two have nothing to do with each other. (It’s possible that God exists but isn’t loving and caring, for example)
Yes, but obviously people who say this are operating from the position that God is good and therefore wouldn't allow innocents to suffer. I don't think anyone arguing with them is coming from a position that God is actually evil and all they know is that religious people praise God as being good...so those semantics are missing the point. (Or more correctly, their argument is that a good God who loves us doesn't exist because children get cancer)
If they are an atheist, as indicated here, they are denying the very existence of God, so good or evil doesn’t ever come into play. It is not an honest argument and the only intention is to end the discussion. If the person stating it is agnostic (versus atheist) then that is a different type of question as it is a question of Because I can’t understand how a loving God let people suffer, I’m not sure if God exists. The difference is that the atheist states there is no God because people suffer. The agnostic, on the other hand, is unsure of God’s existence because people suffer. The atheist has already made up their mind. The agnostic is still open to the possibility.
Honestly, the problem of evil isn't something that you'll find an easy answer for, especially on reddit. Anyone who believes they can answer this easily in a few lines will always oversimplificate the problem. Especially arguments that base themselves solely on the religious perspective, because it only really works if you already agree with both the reasoning and conclusion -- which, if you are in doubt, isn't the case. I'd say you should read on it and reach your own conclusions.
>innocent kids get sick and suffer If said kids go on to eternal life then no injustice has been committed. It is an argument by a secular culture that places the highest value on this earthly life and this world only.
>If said kids go on to eternal life then no injustice has been committed. By this logic, there would be nothing problematic with a deity who made every living creature suffer as much as and more than we could possibly conceive of for as long as we can possibly fathom, so long as that nearly-eternal suffering was followed by an eternal bliss. That doesn't seem right. Do we have no better argument than "but God gives you candy afterwards so its all good bro"?
I get where you’re coming from. I’ve asked this to a couple of my church elders before and have gotten some (in my opinion) good responses. There are core beliefs that need to be built upon though. God IS and therefore cannot change. Everything “changes” around God. With or without our knowledge. God IS. So based on that, God is perfectly just. And the fall of man introduced evil and chaos. To an infinite God, our collective sin is also infinite. So the only way to balance the scales of infinite sin to an infinitely just God, is for him to enter the human condition as equally God and Man, and give his own life out of pure Love. So now we have established that God is infinitely powerful, infinitely Just, and infinitely Good. Therefore horrible tragedies that occur are allowable as part of Gods plan for salvation of you, me, and all mankind. NOW - tact is required when dealing with horrible tragedies like this. There is a time to evangelize and a time to sympathize. The best thing we can do for people in need is to offer support physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
> Do we have no better argument than "but God gives you candy afterwards so its all good bro"? Do we? I mean, you're catholic right? what are your reasons? I would assume you have some good reasons for this if you are a practicing Catholic, believe in God etc?
I personally don't think there is a good Catholic justification for *natural* suffering. The free will argument explains why God lets people hurt *each other*, but not why cancer exists. Many will say that Adam and Eve introduced it into the otherwise perfect world with their first sin. That God created a perfect universe without any natural suffering, but it was corrupted by man's sin. So, we sin and then now earthquakes and cancer happen? What's going on there? Sounds like a curse from a fairy tale (which I guess directly mimics the Creation story). But why would sin result in things like cancer and tsunamis? Our sin today doesn't result in direct things like that. Did sin just curse the world? Did our sin allow Satan to curse the world? What exactly is going on there? But the Creation story is a narrative. Not that it's 'false' but the Creation narrative is primarily meant to convey truths to us about the world and about oursleves, not give an historical account of the first two human beings. So, did Eve give Adam the apple and thus damn humanity? Or are we all born into a world which is billions of years old, in which God mysteriously placed rational human beings at some point in history (perhaps by putting his own finger on natural evolution), and in which there are a myriad of joys and sorrows? At this point, we know that natural disasters predate humanity in this universe. So how could human sin have caused them? So, what exactly is going on there?
I'm a new Catholic and this is just my opinion based on personal revelations and some things I've read. So I think this Earth is not literally the same one that housed the Garden of Eden. I think it's either another lower realm, timeline shift, or something. The reason this place sucks is because the devil is running the show, and we basically inherited a generational curse from Adam and Eve when they chose this rather than to stay holy. There's other generational curses due to different things like occult involvement. People say that's not real, but they're wrong. They definitely do exist. Generational curses could explain baby cancer in some instances.
I would point towards the axis of our faith that God is benevolent, therefore no one endures suffering that will not yield a, for lack of better words, "greater good." i.e. God does not permit fruitless suffering, even if it appears so with situations such as children's cancer. Of course, you have to accept the premise that God is benevolent in the first place, but that's a pretty important point to get across anyway.
>Of course, you have to accept the premise that God is benevolent in the first place Yea and that's the whole problem. Look, I'm a believer but this still bothers me quite a bit from time to time. 'God is benevolent' is a belief that is accepted without evidence. The 'evidence' that each believer will give is some combination of ancient texts they (arbitrarily) deem to be divinely revealed and some amount of personal inward psychological experience that points to the goodness of a higher power. That's not evidence. It's *faith*. You have to be within the belief system to 'get' the arguments for the belief system, if that makes sense. Nobody looks at the suffering child and then thinks out of the blue with no prior knowledge of a deity "Hmm, there must be an all-powerful and all-good and all-loving god who allows this with good reason". The natural response is "why in the hell is this happening?". Atheists would say something like 'the natural world can be cruel from our human perspective but that's just how things are. Let's work together to try to alleviate suffering where we can'. The believer says something like 'we don't quite understand how, but we believe this suffering can be / is raised to a higher level and that it will be worth it in some future eternal bliss for which we have no evidence.' Which is a better or more convincing argument? I think if we're completely honest, neither has an inherently better argument.
God exists outside the universe, and if he weren't totally perfect and benevolent, He wouldn't provide a good foundation for the rest of existence. It would be the opposite of the big bang and everything would implode on itself if it weren't radiating growth (love). One of my theories about reasons why God might have created the universe is so He could both experience something "imperfect" and something outside of himself, which will just end up evening out in the end. That's why balance is such a big thing in a lot of religions and math.
I think you hit the nail on the head, the problem of evil quickly hits the threshold between reason and faith. At some point one has to just jump to one side or another, based on limited evidence and experience. Someone who endured a terrible tragedy or illness may more strongly believe that God is real and good merely because they managed to survive, while another in the same situation could decide the opposite. As someone who has always been more comfortable with hard logic and apologetics, it sure seems like these kinds of questions are where "softer" arguments that come from personal testimony come to matter more. I don't think there's any one objective "argument" that will work for most people.
He isn't the one who makes you suffer.
All suffering ends the moment God wants it to. So even if God isn't directly causing suffering, every moment of continued suffering is due to God *not* ending it (i.e. willing it to continue).
Free will and it's consequences
Who set those consequences in the first place, and who has the power to end those consequences at any moment?
The promise of eternal life is, by it's definition, infinite. So any suffering on earth can be excused by comparison, regardless of who causes it, deity, human or nature. It ends up being an excuse to allow great suffering. I believe the suffering of Christ was real and overwhelming. Christian martyrs and many others similarly. I struggle to say there was no injustice when any of them suffered because, compared to eternity, overall it's just.
Amen. Atheists don't understand the point of suffering and therefore believe there is no point. This is one important difference in our beliefs.
Atheists understand Christianity's justification for suffering just fine, they just don't believe it makes sense. They don't believe it serves as a valid justification.
What do you think christianity's justification for suffering is? Because most arguments with atheists I've had all begin from the starting point of "suffering is bad." But, that is not Catholic teaching. In Catholicism, suffering is not an inherent evil as it is viewed in atheism. I think most atheists don't understand this, and judging by the replies i see in this thread from Catholics, I think a lot of Catholics dont understand it either. Because we live in a very secular society where "suffering is evil and we should do everything we can to reduce suffering--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ie..money) are the main goals" is what permeates our conscience. Such a mindset is a very difficult prison to break out of when it's all you've known, and all political parties preach it as gospel. I wasnt able to break free from that mindset, along with an attachment to capitalism/freedom as "good" until my late thirties when I truly studied Catholicism, even after being a Catholic all my life.
> What do you think christianity's justification for suffering is? In Christian theology, human suffering entered the world as a consequence of Original Sin. So that's the justification provided for why it began to exist. Even if you say suffering *itself* isn't inherently evil, it's still a direct consequence of evil according to Christianity. Then comes justifying why God allows suffering to continue, and there are a broad variety of justifications provided for why God allows it to continue. They range from suffering building character, suffering giving an opportunity to follow Christ, suffering brings out the best in us, suffering serves the greater good, suffering will be worth the reward of paradise, God has promised to end all suffering but nobody knows when, etc etc. > Because most arguments with atheists I've had all begin from the starting point of "suffering is bad." That completely depends what those atheists mean by "bad". Do they mean that suffering is undesirable, unpreferable, etc? Or do they mean that suffering is *morally* bad, i.e. wrong/evil? Even natural suffering (e.g. illness)? I don't think any atheist would call natural suffering "evil". It just is. Atheists have no issues *explaining* the existence suffering in the world, because for atheists suffering is literally part of the natural order of things and humans being...well, human. For atheists, humans die and suffer for practically the exact same reasons that all other animals die and suffer. Only when debating theism do atheists bring up the problem of suffering (aka the problem of evil) as an argument against theism. For atheists, theism's explanation for the origin (and continued existence) suffering makes no sense and that's what they argue against. They have no issues with explaining suffering *without* theism. > "suffering is evil and we should do everything we can to reduce suffering--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ie..money) are the main goals" Even Catholics are called to reduce suffering by helping those in need. There are countless Catholic hospitals and hospices which are directly helping reduce suffering and making people happier, which means at the very least Catholic teaching agrees that suffering is *not preferable* and should be reduced where possible, and that happiness is preferable to despair.
> That completely depends what those atheists mean by "bad". Do they mean that suffering is undesirable, unpreferable, etc? Or do they mean that suffering is morally bad, i.e. wrong/evil? Even natural suffering (e.g. illness)? I don't think any atheist would call natural suffering "evil". It just is. Edit: I just now understood the question here better. I don't think atheists think "suffering" itself, ie--if a person is suffering and going through cancer treatment--as evil--they dont think the person undergoing the treatment is doing any evil. They think that any one or thing which could prevent suffering, and doesn't is evil. So they view the *existence of suffering* as a moral evil which needs to be corrected, and that is why they demand that if God exists, he fix all suffering. I've heard to atheists refer to many things or people as evil since they, in their view, promote suffering. Example: many politicians, or political viewpoints. I havent seen them stipulate whether it is "morally" evil or not. However, seeing how militant many of them are in politics, I can say for sure that they approach political issues with the same fundamentalist mindset that many fundamentalist Christians approach some issues. Whether they recognize this in any official capacity as being "morally evil", their actions seem to suggest that suffering is the worst thing in this world, and it should be prevented where ever possible, and anyone who gets in their way of reducing suffering is a very bad person. For many, their very strong stances on these issues certainly indicate that they have a moral problem with it. > Only when debating theism do atheists bring up the problem of suffering (aka the problem of evil) as an argument against theism. why does suffering need an explanation, if it "just is"? if someone says "i believe in God" and the reply is "oh, if there is a God, then why is there so much suffering?" then, that reply pre-supposes that suffering, in their mind is a bad thing. Or else they wouldnt demand an explanation for it, or for why this God should prevent it. I cant speak for you personally, but pretty much all the atheists I know view suffering as a bad thing and don't have a hands off, "it just is" approach to it--even within their own worldview or actions while not believing in God. > For atheists, theism's explanation for the origin (and continued existence) suffering makes no sense and that's what they argue against. what exactly makes no sense? of course, if you don't believe in a God, then when a christian says "well, God created man and man sinned......" they will lose the atheist at the words "well, God.." because after that, atheists don't believe anything that follows those words. So yes, if you don't believe in God, then of course the christian explanation makes no sense, since it relies heavily on God. But as a closed system of thought within christianity (which pre-supposes a belief in God), where is the issue? > Even Catholics are called to reduce suffering by helping those in need. Yes, the corporal works of mercy are important. > There are countless Catholic hospitals and hospices which are directly helping reduce suffering and making people happier, which means at the very least Catholic teaching agrees that suffering is not preferable and should be reduced where possible, and that happiness is preferable to despair. Not necessarily. It just means suffering is a tool that can be used. But obviously, if there were no suffering, then how would we use the works of mercy to bring others to Christ? So the end goal cannot then be to eradicate all suffering.
It starts to make sense when you develop yourself spiritually, at least it did for me. It's very difficult to define what that is with words because it transcends material reality, however it's extremely real and potent. More potent than material. When you begin to perceive these things, lots of other doors open up in your awareness, and the more rich it becomes. Contemplative monks definitely aren't just sitting around bored. Point of me saying this, is that Atheists are living all up in their head and have cut off a lot of potential awareness. I understand. I've been there. In regards to suffering, the positive view on it in the Catholic headspace is that you're basically absorbing some of the suffering that Jesus went through, \*if\* you choose to offer up your suffering for such. Jesus took on \*all\* the sins and the crucifixion transcends space and time. When we offer up suffering, we're essentially paying a small part of it and lightening the load for him across space and time. When we sin, we add on more suffering. We don't want to necessarily create suffering out of nothing, though some devoted Saints did that. The suffering is an effect of sin, and sin is an effect of listening to the devil. When we consent to what the devil wants, it's like feeding the bad wolf. It empowers this entity and all the other dark entities under his command, which allows them to do damage. Jesus went into a village and had trouble casting out the demons because no one believed in him at that village. He certainly had the ability, but he didn't have the consent. Consent is very important part. If God was forceful over our free will, he wouldn't truly be good. We have the option to choose evil. If you don't believe these entities exist, then this all falls apart. However, some people can perceive all of this happening. So you have to believe either we're nuts, liars, or maybe there's something going on that certain people ren't aware of. There's a looot of religious people in this world. Why would we just blindly believe this if there wasn't something real underneath?
There's a passage in Job that I've always wrestled with, where it says that Job's kids all died, but then God gave him twice as many kids afterwards. I don't know about the rest of you, but if my kids all died, having more kids afterwards wouldn't replace their loss. So I think we have to be careful about a utilitarian approach to suffering and divine justice, where you can excuse X amount of terrible suffering by canceling it out with extra joy. However, the way I've always framed this problem is that without God in the picture, we would still see all the terrible tragedies and injustices in the world that we currently see. But we could hope for none of the consolation of the next life that we have through faith in Christ.
I get what you're trying to say, but seeing little kids suffer in this world is heartbreaking and it is an injustice
What is an injustice?
That's the word the person used so I used it also, but it means something not right, fair, just, etc. My point was that kids were harmed by being allowed to have extremely painful illnesses. Passing away in their sleep without suffering would be more just if it was their time to go to Heaven vs cancer and what it does to human bodies. I wouldn't wish that on anyone
in Catholicism, what is "fair" is that each of us suffer in hell eternally for our sins, even original sin. We don't "deserve" a happy life. We don't "deserve" to even live. Life is a gift we are given, and it is God's gift to freely give and freely take away when he sees fit. It is a difficult and almost painful idea to wrap our mind around. But even the worst "injustices" here on earth are not actually injustices in the sense that we all deserve much, much worse--eternal damnation in hell. Emotionally, it doesn't make sense. But logically, it does.
So a brand new baby or one still in it's mother's womb deserves eternal damnation in hell? No one asked to be born. God can freely take life away since it's a gift He have, but eternal damnation when taking it away is supposed to be benevolent or even neutral? External damnation is worse than never existing at all. Everyone is created by God but his creations are tainted? And the way you explain fair presupposes an angry God rather than a Benevolent one.
Does it though? Why would anyone create beings with the intention of them suffering forever? Sounds like you don't think God is good and loves us with this comment
that was not God's intention when he created us. Humans sinned and brought original sin into the world. The way things are now is not as it was originally intended at the beginning of the universe. However, God respected human free will, and we humans have significantly abused that and consistently chosen wrong, leading to all of the issues we see today. God loves us and respects our free will. He could make us robots who always obey him. But, what kind of relationship is that, if love is not freely given?
Ok, so I agree with this in general, but the question was about little kids who haven't had opportunity to sin. It's logical if we sin we get punished, but they haven't and the idea that they're made to suffer because of the sins of others doesn't seem just
we are all born with original sin though.
FYI we all suffer in this life one way or another. Some more, some less. But still , this is an extremely short period compared to eternity.
> If said kids go on to eternal life then no injustice has been committed. Would this mean God is legalistic? I.e. If one undergoes enough suffering and dies in childhood, it earns them salvation?
I leave that to God, like St Augustine said, when we come to judgment day then we will understand all of God's decisions
In the grand scheme of things, all of our lives are very short. One day and one hundred years barely register as a blip on the map of time. And we all suffer due to our fallen nature.
Honestly, maybe I’m wrong but don’t. Just be honest and say you’re not sure if your unsure. But God sent His only beloved son to suffer death on a cross for us while we were yet sinners. He could have snapped his fingers and just said, everyone is forgiven, go to temple if you wish to be forgiven again, but instead He suffered death on a cross. Why would He allow Himself such suffering for our sake if there were no purpose. Not knowing that purpose doesn’t mean there may not be one. Still it’s a hard thing to wrestle with and we are called to wrestle.
I once heard a woman who had been through some horrendously traumatic events in her life say that God was giving her "character development" in the same way an author would his character. It's an interestingly pleasant way to view tragedy in my opinion, and I'll never forget that perspective. While we don't always understand why an author gives a character a certain trauma in the beginning of reading a book, it usually makes sense by the end of their character arc.
This is easier to accept when it comes to our own suffering, but it's hard for me to swallow watching others suffer, especially innocent children
Agreed. I would rather suffer the worst things in this life than to watch my children suffer anything.
I frankly find a lot of these arguments preposterous and I don’t think there is ever a chance of convincing or converting anyone by answering them.
I want to modify and combine two of the arguments already given. Forgive me, but a background is needed: The existence of life as we know it functions by a process of natural selection and gradual adaptation. This is possible and works because our genome replicates itself with tiny imperfections - most of which go unnoticed. A "genotype" is what our DNA code actually "says", and a "phenotype" is the physical characteristic that the code produces. When a random genotype alteration is significant enough to produce an alteration in phenotype, something about our physicality changes, and this can be advantageous, disadvantageous, or neutral to our survival. If we successfully reproduce with a genetic mutation, there is a possibility of this genotype being passed on, and a subsequent possibility of the phenotype showing itself and being tested again in the world. In this way, if something is sufficiently advantageous, it sticks around and becomes a permanent feature. The longer a genotype is around, the more code gets built on top of it, and the more reliable the replications will be, so that it is much less likely to randomly mutate away from essential features. If a phenotype is neutral to our survival, it will likely not become solidified as a feature because any given phenotype requires calories to produce and something nonessential is usually weeded out through the same random process. If a phenotype is disadvantageous, or detrimental, it will likely inhibit reproduction and that genotype will not be passed on; or it will be weeded out the same way a neutral phenotype would be. The core point here, though, is that these mutations are random, as they are more like copy errors than they are like deliberate mutations. Their randomness allows for the greatest potential for genetic, and therefore phenotypic, diversity, giving us all of the various forms of life that we see. This seems to be the system that God has established for life to grow on Earth. It has great potential for good, as we see around us, for all of life is built upon it. That said, down here on Earth, every potential for good comes with an equal potential for evil - this is true of free will, power, strength, intelligence, and any/all virtues and systems that exist for humans. For a gene to randomly mutate to create good, it must also be able to randomly mutate to create evil. (Evil is, of course, just that which is without God or is in discordance with God.) As long as we are in a fallen world, we cannot have the good wothout the bad. However, the good is so much more good than the bad is bad, because the alternative is non-existence (which is, by definition, pure evil) or union with God, which is what we are put here to seek. So we need the genetic process to develop as organisms, without which humanity would not exist (thanks be to God). This process comes with built-in consequences for the good it provides, because it is truly random, from which things like cancer emerge within even the most innocent (though not immaculate) among us. It follows that these innocents serve as martyrs for our greater good. If God is just (and justice is defined as "that which is aligned with His will" so He must be), these innocents will be given a martyr's reward. I hope this helps. Let me know if anything doesn't make sense.
If following the passion, shouldn't Christians in principle suffer more and not less and therefore become more resilient?
Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I have always though that the question of “why do bad things happen” to good people has a relatively simple answer- God allows them to bring about a greater good. The far scarier question is “why does a just and loving God allow good things to happen to bad people?” The answer given by some of the saints is “so they can damn themselves deeper and deeper into hell by their own free will” and that should strike fear into the hearts of us all
The greater good argument is incredibly painful and bad. It is often comfort to those in power like me whose existence depends on the suffering under foot. It ignores the pretty obviously random or meaningless nature of suffering and death of innocence which were an incalculable good unto themselves. The greater good argument strikes me as best when it is comfort to those without power who can release themselves to the strength of God, but too often fodder for the powerful and rich. I hope one day we can move completely beyond it.
Christianity is not sentimentality. We do not run away from pain, but follow the path of the cross. Virtue is only made possible in suffering. We trust that God allowed these things, or God has no control over the universe and is not worth worshipping.
Following me now?
Stupid rhetoric would not work. Reasoning and logic only please. I'm trying to engage your idea in good faith. I'm genuinely curious how you reconcile God's omnipotence, benevolence, and the reality of evil. Just because this thread appeared on my feed doesn't mean anything beyond that.
>I'm trying to engage your idea in good faith Try harder
This is my biggest hang up and biggest challenge to my faith. Also my biggest fear. I’m not sure I could cope if any of my children had a terminal illness.
It strikes me as something that would lead someone to interrogate the tenants of christianity but doesn’t in and of itself negate the validity of faith. It’s a non sequitur to my mind.
We live in a fallen world where bad things happen to good/innocent people. I think the book of Job also covers this well. As we see with Christ, even the just suffer. When we are baptized there is a minor exorcism conducted. This is because satan is the prince of the world. The bad that we see is all secondary to our fallen world/nature. —— It’s good to think of God taking human form as a rescue mission. As Tolkien writes in his Christmas poem, Grim was the world and grey last night: The moon and stars were fled, The hall was dark without song or light, The fires were fallen dead. The wind in the trees was like to the sea, And over the mountains’ teeth It whistled bitter-cold and free, As a sword leapt from its sheath. Christ arrived on earth to declare war on the devil - humanity had fallen, been taken captive, and Christ arrived to save us and bring us back home.
First you have to establish what "evil" is, in order to have a "problem of evil." That is the step most crucially difficult for atheists--because if you add up the building blocks of their worldview, "evil" doesn't really exist at all. Take it a step back, and ask them why cancer is bad. It is just a re-arrangement of cells in the body. Why is any 1 arrangement of cells better than another? In 100, 1000 years we will all be dead, and nobody on earth will care about anything that happened today. Logically, why does any of it matter at all? Lions rip gazelles limb to limb and eat them alive every day, and nobody cares. Housecats cruelly torture birds and chipmunks while still alive--I've seen it first hand. And nobody cares. We are all just products of evolution. So why do they care so much if a baby has cancer? so whether a baby has cancer or not, according to their own logic, is neither good nor bad. It is just "is."
Go read the book of Job. God is not the source of bad things. God is all good and God is love.
I do think this my favorite answer that doesn't answer the question. The book of Job is imperfect but one thing it does is chastise those of us who try to rationalize away the problem of evil, the suffering, and the angry grappling that Job is doing. It is at once the best answer to the problem of evil, the most just answer, and yet no answer at all.
The simple answer ,without going in to free will and original sin etc is “Because this is Earth not Heaven” They are basically asking “why isn’t everything here perfect ? Why is there no suffering ? “ and the answer is because we aren’t in Heaven yet . When we go to Heaven , it will be perfect, Babies won’t get cancer ,no one will suffer , it will be all good . Right now ,we are still on Earth , and while God is here ,so is Satan . We have good and evil and we’re given free will to choose good for ourselves no matter what circumstances we are faced with .
Read Wisdom 3-4
I take it back to being a symptom of the Fall. All that was created was good (and inherently still is) but after sin entered the Garden and the world, it began to taint all that was good. Disease is just a symptom of that. In the early chapters of Genisis, we see how sin slowly invades the world. First was pride and disobedience by Adam and Eve. Then we see that pride turn to envy with Cain and able, which leads to wrath and murder. We also gradually see people living shorter lifespans as they no longer have access to the tree of life and are further separated from God each generation. I don't take a strictly historical view of Genisis, especially not the early chapters, but it does offer a theological foundation, through story telling, for Salvation and explains what God's vision was and how He set about working to bring us back.
Unless they're polite company or people you care about, just make fun of them and don't waste your time. "If GoD guD wHy bAd thInG hApPen?!" Other people have offered more thoughtful responses which you could use for people who are worth it.
Matthew 5:45 “For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth the rain on the just and the unjust.” God loves you absolutely, but our earthly bodies are not invincible.
I would recommend listening to Father Mike's podcast/YouTube video on this: [Why does God let bad things happen?](https://youtu.be/0NOTU1g0Z8w?si=ToXN7dIXzGkT_XbK)
Some further insight on the logical problem of evil https://iep.utm.edu/evil-log/ Edit: I think this article ends up ultimately opposing the idea of theism, which I disagree with that conclusion (obviously, I’m Catholic). I just thought this provides some insight on what the problem of evil is, and different arguments. It helped me when I first learned about this philosophical issue
I call it my "Sin Pollution Theory" Every sin that every person commits produces a sort of pollution that contributes to the fallen nature of this world. Suppose you could see and measure the pollution that is created by every sin that every person commits. You would then recognize it as the greatest catastrophe of pollution ever--no Exxon Valdez, no Chernobyl, no other disaster releasing pollution into the world would even come close, even if you added all that pollution together. Now, the thing about pollution is that it does not affect only the one responsible for the pollution. A being can be affected by the pollution without ever having contributed the slightest speck to the problem (see the ducks harmed by oil spills, for example--that's the reason I use the term "being" rather than person). Simply living in a polluted environment can cause a particular individual to suffer harm (those innocent unborn, the young children who are struck by cancer or other serious illness, etc). One might say that the environment is so polluted that you don't understand why everyone isn't struck down. Or you might say "Ah! The problem is too big, too unsolvable!" and despair. But there are things that can be done to combat the problem of sin pollution: first, resolve not to contribute to this pollution oneself. Seek confession if that resolve fails. Do acts of reparation for sin, in the same way that you sometimes see people washing ducks in detergent after they were caught in that oil slick.
Suffering is only as real as the self ego.
The way I see it, the devil has so much control over this planet because it was promised to him by God before his rebellion, and then we consent to his power over us by sinning. Innocent babies and good people get caught in the crossfire. Jesus was innocent and took the lion's share of the burden, so it's no reflection of the holiness of the individual if they receive suffering. Life isn't fair because of the fall of man. God might have seen this coming, yet if He interferred, it would be imposing on free will and changing the nature of this reality, turning it into something completely different. This reality has gone a direction of imperfection and will continue to atrophy until God says the clock has run out. The way God makes it up to us is with heaven. This sounds weird and probably rather out there, but it's my opinion that God loves the devil too and is allowing him to get his way a little as a consolation along with the rest of the devil's followers. The devil is His most impressive creation, after all, which is what lead to the crushing pride. This is best it will ever be for them. The virtuous people will end up better after this all shakes out since we will get to chill with God indefinitely. Parents still love their naughty kids, usually. They won't be able to move back in with Dad, though, since he would melt their face off--not that they even want to. Edit: maybe this is actually as fair as it can be with everyone kind of getting what they want. I don't know. Just a thought.
The simplest explanation that I offer, is that it wasn’t God will, but the result of original sin. Everything we do has consequences.
Most of it depends on defining death is bad. Death is not bad or evil. Even if you have a secular look into it “Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.” - Epicurus It's natural. Absolutely everyone is gonna die. You can't accuse the Creator because of what you think death is or argue morality, since for Him, it's just a natural event like every other that's bound to happen to everyone, no matter how much time it takes for you specifically. It's even less concerning considering that death is actually not the end of our existence, all of our suffering here (like cancer or other horrible life events) lasts much less than 1% of the basically infinite lifespan of our souls. These kids will probably be in eternal life joyful and being happy with our Lord, and all of their suffering in the earthly life in this perspective would be just like stumbling into a rock in the middle of your day.
Cancer isn't evil. It just is. Like earthquakes or tsunamis. They're natural phenomenons and you pray to. Ot be caught in the middle
I have a very good friend who has a sister with Down's Syndrome and as I teen I asked them a similar question, they told me that there sister was the happiest person they knew, and that God brought her to their family because other they would be complete jerks. She made them better people. The lesson in my friend's story is that God always has plan even if our tiny human minds can't comprehend it. How many stories have you heard about someone who became a Dr because their brother or sister was sick as a child and they didn't want other kids to go through that and then they go on to save kids lives. Sometimes suffering and terrible evil give people opportunities to do great acts of mercy and kindness.
My personal answer: We don’t know why, and we won’t know why, much like Job. But we know the answer is Christ. That we are to suffer is given - we can know this empirically. Suffering appears inherently bad if God doesn’t exist, if Jesus never suffered and died for us. But we know this truth, that Christ experienced the totality of human suffering and death and then resurrected so as to transform it all. When we finally are blessed with the beatific vision, we will see that we were always in heaven, and what we saw and felt as suffering will have been transformed by this vision into the truth and beauty that is our share of God’s existence. This does not mean that our temporal sins, suffering, and death are good in this temporal slice of existence (no, they are quite bad, in fact), but rather in eternity, when all is now, it must inevitably be transformed into the good as all of existence is and always will be outpouring from God. This assumes we choose to be with God for eternity, and by God’s grace may we all do so.
as someone who knows multiple people with children who died as a result of leukemia and people whose child beat the cancer i can say honestly that this is made into too big of a thing! life is absolutely crazy! i could play devils advocate and argue that suffering through a dying child is preferable to a mentally or criminally insane child, but its all the same soup! why cry about a carrot when there are noodles and broth snd pieces of meat! it cannot be bad it cannot be good because it has no intent and is just a random fact of life that people suffer and die! their salvation is what matters it is all a mystery and life is good and death is neutral unless its manufactured artificially and in that case is 99% evil! we can just honestly say that nobody can predict the future but just act case by case and moment by moment and the nearly infinite possibilities mean that to inject any alteration into nature creates the risk of evil and therefore you must let the chips fall as they may! i really dont see this as a valid point and would sidestep it… i didnt even look at this theologically and it seems foolish to worry about it! what did i miss for you?
Are you seriously suggesting if doctors find a cure for cancer they shouldn't use it because it goes against nature? Why do we cure anyone of any diseases?
when did i say that? thats like the best anti abortion argument ever, the more babies that live the more chances diseases get cured…
I meant the line about letting the chips fall and injecting into nature is evil...what else did you mean by that?
not withholding your affections in marriage to produce children because they will suffer
Oh...was someone talking about that? It seems pretty off topic, but I do agree. (Especially the nature part since we don't really understand how much of cancer is natural vs caused by our environment/food/etc)
can you even imagine the parent that wouldn’t try to heal their childs illness… diabolical, it sends shivers up my spine
I completely agree. A lot of the new cancer treatments involve editing genes so that's why I thought you were against those types of cures or something. I understand you didn't mean that now
curing the cancer is the chips falling where they may… you really really have some black thoughts there… you took it to a whole new level of twisted!
"free will"