The Problem of Suffering: A Critique of Atheism

Atheism, as a philosophical position, often relies on the problem of suffering to argue against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing God. However, this critique assumes that such a deity would be morally obligated to prevent suffering. This paper will challenge this assumption and demonstrate that even if God exists, He may have morally justifiable reasons for allowing suffering.

The Omnipotence-Omniscience Paradox

Atheists often argue that an omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing) God would be able to prevent suffering, yet fails to do so. This apparent contradiction is resolved by considering the nature of divine attributes.

  • Omnipotence: God’s power is not limited by external factors, but rather by His own nature and character. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga notes, “God can’t do what is logically impossible” ([1]). Preventing suffering might require a logical contradiction, such as creating free beings without the capacity for evil.
  • Omniscience: God’s knowledge includes not only past and present events but also possible futures and counterfactuals. This means God may know that allowing suffering in certain circumstances is necessary for greater goods or the prevention of even greater evils.

The Greater Good Defense

One plausible reason for God to allow suffering is to bring about a greater good. This defense, also known as the “greater good theodicy,” suggests that certain evils are necessary for achieving morally desirable outcomes.

  • Moral Development: Suffering can foster moral growth, empathy, and compassion in individuals and communities. As C.S. Lewis writes, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts to us in our pain” ([2]).
  • Free Will: The existence of free will, necessary for moral responsibility, requires the possibility of evil choices. God may allow suffering to preserve human freedom and the opportunity for moral development.
  • Redemptive Suffering: Suffering can be redemptive, as seen in the Christian concept of Christ’s crucifixion, which brings about salvation and redemption.

The Atheistic Conundrum

Atheism, in its rejection of a divine being, must provide an alternative explanation for suffering. However, this often leads to internal inconsistencies:

  • Moral Relativism: Without an objective moral framework, atheism struggles to define what constitutes “suffering” or “evil.” Moral relativism undermines the atheist’s ability to criticize God for allowing suffering.
  • Naturalism: A purely naturalistic worldview, which excludes supernatural explanations, must confront the reality of suffering as an inherent aspect of the universe. This raises questions about the morality of a universe that appears indifferent to human well-being.

Engaging with Prominent Atheists

Several prominent atheist thinkers have addressed the problem of suffering:

  • Richard Dawkins: In “The God Delusion,” Dawkins argues that God’s existence is incompatible with the presence of evil ([3]). However, this assumes that an all-powerful, all-knowing God would be morally obligated to prevent suffering.
  • Christopher Hitchens: Hitchens’ “God Is Not Great” critiques religious belief systems for their inability to address suffering ([4]). However, his arguments often rely on emotional appeals and fail to engage with the philosophical nuances of the problem.

Addressing Counterarguments

Some common counterarguments against the greater good defense include:

  • The amount of suffering: The sheer scale of suffering in the world seems disproportionate to any potential greater goods. However, this objection assumes that we can comprehend the full scope of God’s plans and purposes.
  • Alternative possibilities: Critics argue that an all-powerful God could have created alternative scenarios without suffering. However, this assumes that such alternatives are logically possible and would not lead to greater evils.

Conclusion

The problem of suffering does not necessarily contradict the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient God. By considering the nature of divine attributes, the greater good defense, and the internal inconsistencies of atheism, we can conclude that a God who allows suffering may still be morally justified.

Atheism, in its rejection of a divine being, must provide alternative explanations for suffering, which often lead to moral relativism or naturalistic inconsistencies. Ultimately, the critique of atheism from a logical perspective reveals that the existence of suffering does not necessarily disprove the existence of God.

References

[1] Plantinga, A. (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

[2] Lewis, C.S. (1940). The Problem of Pain. New York, NY: Macmillan.

[3] Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

[4] Hitchens, C. (2007). God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York, NY: Twelve Books.