Why?

Looking At God, Evil & Suffering

Sharon Dirckx

• Publisher: IVP
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781844748754
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christianity

Suffering and tragedy can cause us all to ask 'Why?'
?Why do bad things happen?
?If God exists, why doesn?Tt he do something?
?Why am I being singled out?
Of all the hurdles to faith, surely suffering must be the greatest. It tears lives apart and raises questions for us all.
But when we ask?~why?, to whom are we addressing our question?
Where do the most satisfying answers come from?
Does it matter?
Sharon Dirckx unpacks our questions sensitively and wisely, weaving her arguments with real-life stories of anguish and pain
She concludes,?~I would like to show you that, even though we don?Tt understand everything, it is still possible to believe in a powerful, loving God and acknowledge the reality of evil and suffering. Not only that, but seeing life from this perspective helps us make more, not less, sense of our hurting world.?T
While we may never have all the answers, it does not mean that there are no answers at all.

1 If God exists, then why is there so much evil and suffering in the world?

‘I’m sorry, there is nothing we can do for you.’ The consultant’s words confirmed what we already knew, but still they hung in the silence. Despite huge advances in modern medicine, most neurology patients still face the harsh reality that there is no cure for their illness. For some, this brings the devastating news of the beginning of the end of life, of staring mortality square in the face, perhaps for the first time. For my husband Conrad, there was no threat to life itself, only to its quality, but this wreaks havoc enough.

Yet we know we are not alone. We all have stories to tell. As the band R.E.M. put it two decades ago, ‘Everybody hurts sometimes’. Pain and suffering are universal. No-one is exempt. Times of trouble and pain make us cry out for answers. Why, why, why?! If God exists, then why is there so much evil and suffering in the world?

As we begin to explore suffering, I would like to suggest that we need to start not with ‘why?’ but with ‘if’. For the question of ‘if’ is crucial. In ancient Greece the Athenian king is known to have written a threatening letter to his city’s arch-enemies in Sparta, saying, ‘You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army on your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people and raze your city.’ The Spartans, renowned for their military prowess but not their eloquence, responded with this one word: ‘If’.

For Sparta, the question of ‘if’ was the difference between life and death, a bright future or a bitter end. So it is with God and suffering. The question of ‘if’ changes everything. For ‘if’ God exists, then he has some explaining to do, but ‘if’ he does not, then suffering is not a problem as such. Suffering is inconvenient, yes, distressing, yes, but problematic, no. For if there is no higher being and we are in a closed system, then to whom is your complaint being addressed?

Our perspective on suffering is very much dependent on how we view the world. There are many different ‘lenses’ or religions available, each offering a different way to make sense of suffering. Many people think that deep down all religions are saying the same thing, even though they may appear superficially different. To help us decide, we need to dig beneath the surface and examine how the different major world religions each answer the question: ‘If God exists, then why is there so much evil and suffering?’

Atheism

Atheism, taken from the Greek a: ‘without’, theos: ‘God’, is defined as ‘the absence of belief in gods and the supernatural’.1 It took root in revolutionary France when the middle classes rejected the oppressive state religion and it became a personally held belief in the nineteenth century. Today there are between 500 million and 750 million atheists worldwide.2

A key reason why atheists do not believe in God is the very existence of evil. If God were real, he would do something about it. Given that he has not done, then it is either certain 3 or highly probable4 that God does not exist. Atheism solves the intellectual problem of evil by concluding that a world of pain is simply the way the world is. This then raises the question of how atheists define the very evil they abhor. In other words, how does one establish moral values, good and evil, right and wrong, without God? The majority of atheists agree that ethical codes of living are essential, but that human beings themselves are capable of devising them. The different approaches can be summarized as three main theories.

1. ‘Each to their own’

The first theory deals with egoism, in which each person’s own internal moral code determines what is right and wrong. We often hear this expressed in contemporary culture as, ‘That’s true for you but not true for me’, or ‘Each to their own’, or ‘You need to look out for number one’. The good is whatever is right for the individual, and the bad is whatever is not in his or her best interests. This is not just a recent phenomenon. The ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras claimed that ‘Man is the measure of all things’.5 On one level this is reasonable, and may work in the day-to-day decisions of, for example, what washing machine to buy or where to shop for our children’s shoes. However, with more serious moral decision-making, we run into problems. What happens if an action taken in one person’s interests harms another? Can you guarantee that people will always draw from their internal moral good? We cannot. A mere glance at the newspaper shows that we cannot guarantee that, in serving their own interests, people will also consider the interests of others.

The riots in London and other UK cities in August 2011 gave us an extreme snapshot of what society might look like if people were able to make their own rules. The cause of the riots was complex and involved more than just individuals acting selfishly. Nevertheless, it gave a glimpse of what could happen if the opportunity to create one’s own morality is opened up. The nation looked on, stunned, as anarchy descended upon our capital city. Shops were ransacked and looted, cars set alight, and people were afraid to leave their homes for fear of attack or robbery. Oppor­tunists cashed in. Thousands were doing it, and the police were powerless to stop it for a time. We saw communities of individuals each living by their own moral code. The result? Chaos.

A looter was interviewed shortly afterwards 6 and asked why he was stealing and looting. His reply was that there was an opportunity to get possessions free of charge and he wasn’t going to miss it. It was as though he was perfectly justified in his actions. Yet when asked whether it would be acceptable for his own home to be looted, his response was one of outrage. That would be utterly unacceptable. This response to egoism is common. Whatever is right for us is fine until it literally ‘comes knocking on our own door’, and then (and sometimes only then) we are outraged and caused to invoke a higher moral standard that states that some things are universally wrong. The real world is clear that ethics centred on personal preference are simply unlivable, and those living in areas affected by the rioting would be the first to admit this.

2. The greater good

The second theory for establishing moral values is utilitarianism. In the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill developed the theory that right actions are those that result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, whereas wrong actions are those that tend to promote pain and harm. Actions are deemed right or wrong based on their consequences in the community, regardless of the initial motives or any good or bad within the act itself. In other words, the ends justify the means.

For example, the trafficking of African slaves to North America in the seventeenth century or indeed of young women to Europe in the twenty-first century would not necessarily be wrong according to utilitarianism. By the mid-nineteenth century, slavery was a thriving industry that bolstered the economy and crop production of fifteen states in the southern USA. Likewise, many profit financially and physically from the modern-day sex industry. Utilitarianism would assess whether human trafficking is right or wrong, based on outcomes. The process of assessing consequences is complex. Some utilitarians such as Peter Singer 7 would say that some ‘rights’ take precedence over others, for example the right to live overrides the right to business success. Many checks and balances are included and may generate a number of possible scenarios. The suffering of the slaves would certainly be taken into account, but if the benefits outweigh the harm of slavery itself, then an honest utilitarian would not have had grounds for the abolition that Wilberforce and others secured in 1807 or that anti-trafficking campaigners are pushing for today.

In practice, a number of problems arise. For how can people assess outcomes when we have such a limited perspective on life, may be biased about what is ‘good’ and cannot see very far into the future? Firstly, what is meant by a ‘good’ outcome? Bentham and Mill defined happiness as being intrinsically good, against which all other values were to be compared. Others have said our common sense would make the best outcome obvious. Therefore the definition of ‘good’ varies. Secondly, how does one define ‘community’ or ‘the greatest number’? Thirdly, this ethic takes a diminished view of individuals. While communities are vital, does not the welfare of the individual matter too? Fourthly, how does one decide that the outcome of an action has run its course? To assess outcomes properly, a far bigger perspective is needed, arguably one that is outside of time and space itself. Fifthly, finally and most importantly, who should bear the responsibility for these decisions? For humans to evaluate outcomes that involve the lives and livelihoods of fellow human beings surely places undue pressure where it was never supposed to be.

3. Moral values have evolved

A third theory is that moral values have emerged through evolutionary mechanisms. J. H. Huxley and T. H. Huxley developed Darwin’s biological theory of evolution into an ethic, stating that whatever aids the evolutionary process is right and whatever hinders it is wrong.8 Over time, the environment, genetics and culture have shaped and refined social instincts such that the morally superior traits are those that enable the survival of the species.

There are some problems with this approach. Firstly, who or what decides what aids or hinders evolution? Some standard outside of the evolutionary process must be assumed, with the end-point in sight, as otherwise it would be impossible to define what progress actually is. Secondly, since there is no ultimate standard by which to measure progress, this quickly becomes a matter of subjective preference and switches into egoistic ethics. Even rape and murder could be justified in some circumstances, since they may help a person’s own genes survive. Thirdly, sometimes conflicting instincts arise, and the prevailing one does not promote survival of the fittest. Take for example a mother who rescues her drowning baby, at great risk to her own life. The evolutionary ‘good’ would have been to save herself, for even a rescued baby with no mother to care for it would eventually die. Why then did another instinct overrule? Are all instincts equally valid? Or do humans behave as though some are more valid than others?

Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene sails evolutionary ethics full into the wind. Humans are mere pawns in the evolutionary process, whose sole function in life is to pass on their genetic material to the next generation. Jeffrey Skilling, the former CEO in the Enron scandal, was inspired by Dawkins and, in the words of one magazine, ‘sought to apply nature’s lessons to the energy industry’. The working environment was brutal. ‘Skilling...implemented a system known as “rank and yank” that...had all employees in the company ranked every six months. Then he offered lavish bonuses to the top 5 percent while the bottom 15 percent were relocated or fired.’9 On hearing this, Dawkins was said to have been appalled, commenting that the emphasis of his book was intended to be upon ‘gene’ rather than ‘selfish’, and translating genetic behaviour into business ethics was a step too far. Yet in the absence of a transcendent standard, who decides? How ironic that Enron is now extinct.

This outworking of evolutionary ethics is dark, but it gets darker still. The Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf (1925) worked out a form of social Darwinism. He extrapolated the principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest to ethnic groups, in order to preserve what he viewed as ‘stronger’ (Aryan) races, and remove ‘weaker’ (Jewish and other non-Aryan) ones. Of course, it is essential to add here that the vast majority of people who would claim their morality has evolved would not dream of taking things to such extremes. The morality of many who do not believe in God can often put to shame that of those of us who do. However, a crucial question to ask is: ‘What sorts of things become permissible if God does not exist and human beings are at the helm?’ If the only moral law is the internal one within, or is determined by evolution, then whether we are in a classroom or a death camp, anything goes, and it doesn’t matter who gets hurt. If God does not exist, then people can justifiably make up their own rules.

So we have seen three of the ways in which right and wrong are defined in the absence of God. Moral values are defined in terms of personal preference (egoism), the best outcome for the greatest number of people (utilitarianism) or survival instincts (evolutionary ethics). Although these theories each highlight aspects of right and wrong that may contribute towards an ultimate definition of right and wrong, in and of themselves they are unlivable. So what answers do the other world faiths offer?

Hinduism

There are 800 million Hindus in the world, comprising 13% of the world’s population. In broad terms, Hindus worship either many finite gods (polytheistic Hinduism; derived from polus: ‘many’; theos: ‘god’) or one infinite God (pantheistic Hinduism; derived from pan: ‘all’; theos: ‘god’) or a combination of the two.

In the polytheistic form of Hinduism, the good and evil we encounter in life are a result of the ongoing battle between up to 330 million gods, some of whom are good, others evil. In the pantheistic form, good and evil belong to the lower-level physical world of illusion (maya), and must be transcended into a higher spiritual reality known as Brahman, which is beyond such categories, i.e. beyond good and evil.

Brahman is infinite but impersonal, and is better described as ‘it’ rather than ‘he’ or ‘she’. Therefore there is no ‘being’ as such to whom to address our ‘why?’ question. Humans are extensions of Brahman – if you like, mini-gods – because the essence of pantheism is that all is God and God is all. Upright living is an intrinsic part of the journey, and virtues such as truthfulness, love and good judgment are highly esteemed, but must eventually be discarded as higher and higher levels are attained. In order to merge with Brahman, the pantheist must let go of the concern of morality and pass beyond good and evil, since that is where God is. As Prabhavananda puts it, ‘If we say, “I am good,” or “I am bad,” we are only talking the language of maya (the world of illusion). “I am Brahman,” is the only true statement regarding ourselves that any of us can make.’10

This approach appears peaceable but has huge implications. If evil is not real, then why does it seem to scream at us so loudly from our streets, our schools, our TV screens and our households? If evil is illusory, then why would anyone lock their door at night? Is it really possible to live as though there is no difference between love and murder, generosity and theft, disease and health? The philosopher Francis Schaeffer proposed that, if a belief system is true, then it is also fully livable for anyone, in any culture, in any demographic group, at any time point in history. If at any point our beliefs have to be suspended in order to continue living, then the truth of those beliefs is called into question. Equally, to what belief system has one defaulted in order to continue living? Schaeffer illustrates the point with this story:

One day I was talking to a group of people in the digs of a young South African in Cambridge. Among others, there was present a young Indian who was of Sikh background but a Hindu by religion. He started to speak strongly against Christianity, but did not really understand the problems of his own beliefs. So I said, ‘Am I not correct in saying that on the basis of your system, cruelty and non-cruelty are ultimately equal, that there is no intrinsic difference between them?’ He agreed...The student in whose room we met, who had clearly understood the implications of what the Sikh had admitted, picked up his kettle of boiling water with which he was about to make tea, and stood with it steaming over the Indian’s head. The man looked up and asked him what he was doing and he said with a cold yet gentle finality, ‘There is no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty.’ Thereupon the Hindu walked out into the night.11

The question of whether this young man could live what he believed revealed a stark inconsistency.

Buddhism

Buddhism was born out of Hinduism and out of a desire to acknowledge that evil and suffering are real. The Buddha or ‘the enlightened one’ was born as Prince Siddhartha Gautama between 624 and 563 BC in present-day Nepal. As part of a wealthy family with a protective father, he led a pampered life within the confines of the palatial home. As an adult, he finally ventured out, only to be shocked by the sickness and death he encountered.

At the age of twenty-nine, with much heartache, the dis­illusioned prince left his wife and baby boy to wander through the plains of eastern India in search of the truth, and is said to have reached enlightenment seven years later. After a further two months he delivered his first sermon and introduced the world to the Four Noble Truths that were to change the course of Asian history. The first Noble Truth establishes the human problem: life is fraught with affliction and suffering (dukkha) at every turn. The second Noble Truth diagnoses that the cause of suffering is craving (tanha), desire or attachment to the world. The third Noble Truth prescribes that suffering can be overcome by extinguishing desire. The fourth Noble Truth offers that the way to extinguish desire is via the Eightfold Path, which involves emotional, mental and physical exercises aimed at perfecting right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration.12 Progress along this path eventually leads to nirvana, an enlightened state bringing the cessation of desire, detachment from the world and suffering, and liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth of which each person is a part.

Buddhism then acknowledges evil, but the solution is not to challenge it but to detach oneself from it. The final state of nirvana (meaning ‘nothingness’ or ‘extinction’) is one in which the individual is extinguished along with their desires. It is ultim­ately impersonal and therefore bears many similarities to pantheistic Hinduism. The apologist Os Guinness puts it well:

To say it again, in the Buddhist view there is quite simply no remedy for suffering in this world...

Table of contents

• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Foreword
• Introduction
• Frances’s story
• 1 If God exists, then why is there so much evil and suffering in the world?
• 2 If God knew the world would be a place of suffering, then why did he create it?
• Will’s story
• 3 If God is so powerful, then why doesn’t he stop evil before it happens?
• 4 Surely religion is the cause of so much suffering?
• Grace’s story
• 5 If God exists, then does he care about my suffering?
• 6 Am I responsible for anyone else’s suffering?
• Charles’s story
• 7 Why does God allow natural disasters and diseases?
• Rachel’s story
• 8 Can a broken story be fixed?
• 9 How do I move forward from here?
• Notes