Punt 1

Why do we suffer?

A reflection upon the evil and suffering in the world in

conjunction with an all-good and omnipotent God.

Jonathan T. Punt

The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;

may the name of the LORD be praised.

 Punt 2

Part 1: The Problem of Pain and Evil

I. Introduction

II. The problem

III. No see um arguments and the evidential version of the problem of pain

Part 2: The Free Will Defense

IV. Free will and moral evil

V. Why free will?

VI. An objection

VII. Yet another objection and the fall of man

VIII. Consequences of the fall of man

IX. Evidence for the fall

X. Conclusion of the free will defense

Part 3: More Answers

XI. The principle of first and second things

XII. Being good is greater than feeling good.

XIII. Bad fortune teaches; good fortune deceives.

XIV. A final word on suffering

XV. Conclusion

 Punt 3

Part 1: The Problem of Pain and Evil

I. Introduction

The question “Why do we suffer?” is one that humans have been asking since the

beginning of time. As such, I am not bold enough (or foolish enough for that matter) to

claim that in this essay, all of the reader’s questions will be answered--that I have

discovered the true, exhaustive answer to this timeless inquiry. My objective is far more

humble. In Making Sense out of Suffering, Peter Kreeft compares the complexity of the

problem of suffering to the complexity of a diamond. A diamond is multi-faceted. No 1

one can see the facets of a diamond all at once because we are limited by our angle of

vision. By drawing completely on ideas, arguments, and reflections of men

tremendously more knowledgable than me, I aim to assemble clues, or facets, of the

answer to the problem of pain that together will give real and meaningful insight into

the question: “Why do we suffer?”

II. The Problem

In the modern age of intellectual discord and subjectivity, where solidarity is

non-existent except for in a few empirically scientific disciplines, one thing is certain:

humans suffer. Most people at some point in their lives have in some way or another

echoed the words of Job, “The arrows of the Almighty are in me, my spirit drinks in their

poison; God’s terrors are marshaled against me.” In part X of Dialogues Concerning 2

1 Kreeft pg 23 2 Job 6:4

 Punt 4

Religious Belief, Hume develops the problem of pain and evil with disheartening

cogency. He claims that pain is built into the fabric of nature:

The Whole earth… is cursed and polluted. A perpetual war is kindled amongst all

living creatures. Necessity, hunger, want, stimulate the strong and courageous:

fear, anxiety, terror, agitate the weak and infirm. The first entrance into life gives

anguish to the new-born infant and to its wretched parent: weakness, impotence,

distress, attend each stage of that life: and it is at last finished in agony and

horror. 3

Furthermore, Hume maintains that man’s societal improvements that have allowed him

to master nature have only increased his suffering:

This very society, by which we surmount those wild beasts, our natural enemies;

what new enemies does it not raise to us? What woe and misery does

it not occasion? Man is the greatest enemy of man. Oppression, injustice,

contempt, contumely, violence, sedition, war, calumny, treachery, fraud; by these

they mutually torment each other; and they would soon dissolve that society

which they had formed, were it not for the dread of still greater ills, which must

attend their separation. 4

After the last century which included horrors of the global wars and the holocaust, it is

fair to say that evil and suffering are facts of life. Hume uses this undeniable fact of life

to disprove the existence of an all-good and all-powerful God: “Is he willing to prevent

evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent.

3 Hume paragraph 156 4 Hume paragraph 160

 Punt 5

Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?” In the form of a syllogism, his logic is 5

as follows:

1. If God was perfectly good, he would not want evil or suffering to exist.

2. If God was omnipotent, he would be able to perfectly accomplish all of his

desires.

3. Evil and suffering exist.

4. Therefore a perfectly good, omnipotent God does not exist.

The problem of pain and suffering as presented by Hume is much more than just

a difficulty for Christians. It is a true defeater. About point 4 Hume claims, “Through the

whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible

than these.” If the syllogism is as flawless as Hume asserts, one cannot rationally 6

believe in YAHWEH, the Judeo-Christian God. According to the problem of pain the

existence of such a being is more than just unlikely, it is logically impossible. God and

suffering are like the irresistible force and the immovable object: if one exists, the other

cannot.

Because the problem of pain is so convincing intellectually and emotionally, it is

in many cases the largest hindrance to belief in God. Charles Darwin’s atheistic beliefs,

for example, resulted not from science, but from his daughter’s suffering. Charles

Darwin was raised an Anglican and even considered pursuing a career in the clergy. 7

When his daughter struggled with scarlet fever and died, however, his faith was

shattered. According to Darwin’s biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore,

5 Hume paragraph 176 6 Hume paragraph 174 7 D'Souza pg 20

 Punt 6

“Annie’s cruel death destroyed Charles’ tatters of belief in a moral, just universe. Later

he would say that this period chimed the death-knell for his Christianity. Charles now

took his stand as an unbeliever.” 8

Many of today’s New Atheists seem to have rejected God for similar reasons. As

in the case of Darwin, these evangelical atheists frequently reject God not because of

science, but because of his cruel nature and indifference to suffering. In Richard

Dawkins' iconic book The God Delusion we read, “The God of the Old Testament is

arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty,

unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a

misogynistic, homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential,

megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” To put it mildly, 9

Dawkins’ tone departs from the scientific.

I do not seek to discredit the atheist's case by showing that, in many cases, the

root of his disbelief is the problem of pain--in reality, the Problem of Pain has more

convincing power than science because it does more than just present an alternative

explanation to the origins of the universe as we know it; it offensively proves that belief

in God is irrational. Rather, I aim to focus the God question on this issue. The Problem

of Suffering is the largest roadblock to belief. As streetsweepers on the road to grace,

Christian apologists must work especially hard to answer this most substantial of

obstructions.

8 Desmond pg 387 9 Dawkins pg 51

 Punt 7

III. No see um arguments and the evidential version of the Problem of

Pain

It is important to note that the problem of Suffering is plagued by the problem of

local knowledge. For the conclusion “an all-good, omnipotent God necessarily does not

exist” to be true, there must be no good reason for an all-good, omnipotent God to allow

evil and suffering (contention 1). But the atheist cannot reasonably say that there is

objectively no good reason. All that he or she can sensibly claim is “I personally can see

no good reason.”

The Problem of Pain is what philosophers call a “no see um” argument. No see 10

um arguments are only valid if the one making the no see um claim has comprehensive

access to the information necessary to make a valid no see um conclusion. This is simply

not the case when it comes to the Problem of Pain. As humans in a vast, complex

universe, there are inherent limitations to our knowledge. As the philosopher William

Lane Craig states:

Given the dizzying complexity of life, we are simply in no position at all to judge

that God has no good reason for permitting some instance of suffering to afflict

our lives. Every event sends a ripple effect through history, such that God’s

reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later and perhaps in

another country. 11

To say that our perspective as humans is limited in comparison to omniscience is

an egregious understatement. The Bible supports the teaching that we are not in always

10 D’souza pg 68 11 Craig pg 160

 Punt 8

in the position to see the reason for the suffering we may have to endure. In the book of

Job, the problem of suffering finds powerful Biblical expression. Job, a faithful servant

of the LORD, is forced to face agonizing trials for reasons that are completely beyond

him. Since Job could see no reason for his suffering--he was a blameless and upright

man who feared God and shunned evil --he comes to the conclusion that there was no 12

valid reason for God to allow him to experience such pain. He at one point goes as far as

to claim that God had been unjust to an upright man. As the Bible scholar Wiersbe 13

notes, Job’s problem (and many of ours) is that he “thought he knew about God, but he

didn’t realize how much he didn’t know about God.” 14

God answered Job’s accusations, not with a theodicy, but with a glorious

revelation of his power. He answered Job’s questions with a series of his own questions

(77 total): “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you

understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!...” God corrected Job’s 15

conclusion that just because Job could not see a reason for His suffering, there was

none.

We, the readers can see that God had a very good reason to allow Job to suffer, a

reason, in fact, that Job couldn’t be allowed to understand. In Job 1:8 God rejoices

because his plan for covenant love is working, his servant Job loves Him; he fears God

and shuns evil. In verses 9-11, however, a voice that can be translated as “the 16

12 Job 1:1 13 Job 6:29; 27:2 14 Wiersbe pg 77 15 Job 38:4-5 16 Job 1:8

 Punt 9

adversary” disagrees: “Does Job fear God for nothing?... Have you not put a hedge 17

around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his

hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out

your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.” The

accuser was claiming that humans are incapable of true selfless love and that God did

not merit such love; he was not worthy of worship. Those that do follow God only do so

out of self-interest because God rewards them for their obedience. Unbeknownst to 18

Job, the central doctrine of the Christian faith--a covenant relationship that transcends

self interest on either side--was at stake in his response to suffering. Although Job did

not understand the reason behind his suffering, his faithful endurance and obedience

through trial was displaying his pure love of God and silencing spiritual accusations.

Given the problem of local knowledge, Hume’s syllogism does not stand. It is not

reasonable to say that it is logically impossible for an all all-good, all-powerful God to

exist in conjunction with suffering, for he may have reasons for our trials that transcend

our limited perspective. 19

Although the Hume’s syllogism and the logical problem of suffering have been

defeated, the question Why do we suffer? has hardly been answered and the evidential

problem of evil and suffering yet looms. Given the obscene and seemingly pointless

suffering mankind experiences on a daily basis, if not impossible, it seems at least

unlikely that an all-good God created such a cruel world. Since the logical problem of

suffering has long since been defeated, today most atheists present the evidential

17 Davis pg 123 18 Wiersbe pg 11 19 See Romans 11:33-34, Isaiah 55:9

 Punt 10

version of the problem of suffering: “It is improbable that God could have reasons for

causing or permitting all the suffering in the world.” It is logically possible for Santa 20

Claus to exist but one would be a fool to believe he does given the amount of evidence

that he doesn’t. Similarly, the evidential problem of pain asserts that one would be a fool

to believe in God given all the evidence against him--the evidence in this case being evil

and suffering.

Even if God has not yet been vindicated, some progress has been made toward his

acquittal. If valid reasons for suffering can be found in many general cases, belief in God

is rational. In order to make an all-good, all-powerful God compatible with suffering,

explanations for every specific case of suffering need not be found. Given the problem of

local knowledge, it is reasonable to say that God likely has a reason to permit specific

instances of suffering as long some general good reasons to allow suffering can be found.

Now our path is clear. In order to “get God off the hook” so to speak and answer

the question “Why do we suffer?” we must find morally upstanding reasons for God to

permit suffering and evil. Let us now embark on this thrilling and momentous endeavor!

Part 2: The Free Will Defense

IV. Free will and moral evil

Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God.

--Thomas Aquinas 21

Vital to understanding the origin of evil is correctly understanding the limits of

omnipotence. Common thought holds that omnipotence denotes the power to do

20 Craig pg 157 21 Summa Theologica., I Q XXV, Art 4

 Punt 11

anything. While an omnipotent being certainly has access to unlimited power,

omnipotence is ‘limited’--for lack of a better word--by what C.S. Lewis calls intrinsic

impossibilities. “In ordinary cases,” Lewis notes, “the word impossible generally implies

a suppressed clause beginning with the word unless.” For example, if a football player 22

had broken his leg on a play, he might say, “it is impossible for me to get off the field,”

when in reality he means, “it is impossible for me to get off the field unless I am helped

by the training staff.” C.S. Lewis maintains that there are some kinds of impossibilities

of a higher order than such relative impossibilities. Some things are self-contradictory

and therefore absolutely impossible.

An absolute impossibility can also be considered an intrinsic impossibility

because “it carries impossibility within itself, instead of borrowing it from other

impossibilities which in their turn depend upon others.” It is intrinsically impossible, 23

for example, for a round square to exist because a square, by definition, has four ninety

degree angles connected by four straight lines. In Hume’s syllogism, he claims that it is

intrinsically impossible for an omnipotent, all-good being to exist in conjunction with

suffering and evil because, by definition, God would both desire to remove suffering and

have the full power to realize all of his wishes. Hume’s intrinsic possibility is flawed,

however, because even in his omnipotence, God is not able to remove moral evil while

maintaining human freedom. It is absolutely impossible for God to compel the actions

of a morally responsible free agent. As Lewis notes,

22 The Problem of Pain. pg 17 23 The Problem of Pain pg 18

 Punt 12

If you choose to say ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time

withhold free will from it,’ you have not succeeded in saying anything about God:

meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply

because we prefix them with the two words ‘God can’... nonsense remains

nonsense even when we talk it about God. 24

The problem of pain is becoming a little bit clearer now. It seems reasonable to

say that God may have good reasons to allow suffering given he has to work with the

unalterable freedom of humans, for, “We have no idea what suffering might be involved

in order for God to achieve some intended purpose through the freely chosen actions of

human persons.” Given that if God decides to create morally responsible free agents, 25

he cannot compel their actions without removing their freedom, a new question is

raised...

V. Why free will?

Even if the free will of humans can be proved as the source for moral evil, the

question remains “Why free will?” Why would God give us the option to make mistakes

at all? How could free will possibly be worth the devastating cost of its abuse. If humans

choose to inflict pain on themselves and one another when given the ability to make

choices, why not create a world free of freedom and therefore free of suffering?

Although this question is logically reasonable on the surface, it is really rarely

asked. This is because, ultimately, free will resonates with the very essence of who we

24 The Problem of Pain pg 18 25 Craig pg 160

 Punt 13

are. We fundamentally need free will to be human. Dinesh D’Souza makes this point in

God Forsaken:

Freedom is not an incidental characteristic for humans. One can give paint to a

building, but one cannot give roundness to a circle. That’s because roundness is

an intrinsic characteristic of circles; without it, circles would cease to be circles.

Freedom for humanity is like roundness for circles: without it, we would lose our

humanity. 26

Robots or zombies move around and act like humans do, but they lack

consciousness and therefore freedom. Some animals, unlike robots or zombies, seem to

have consciousness, but they are governed by instinct. They don’t make choices the way

humans do and are consequently held morally unaccountable. Presumably, God

could’ve created a world of zombies or robots, or of homo sapiens governed entirely by

righteous instinct, but such a world would not have humans. Instead, God wanted to

create a world of agents that could be loved by God and have the unique ability to

reciprocate his love in return. Love cannot be forced; by nature it must be free. God thus

created free agents, humans, with whom he could form a loving relationship. Although

free will makes suffering possible, it also gives meaning to suffering. In a sense, free will

is both the source and solution for suffering.

VI. An objection

26 D’souza pg 83

 Punt 14

Hume, for one, still isn’t satisfied. He has another question. Most scientists agree

that nature is governed by universal and inexorable laws. However, to the average

person the course of nature does not seem so regularly governed.

Many events are uncertain… Health and sickness, calm and tempest, with an

infinite number of other accidents, whose causes are unknown and variable, have

a great influence both on the fortunes of particular persons and on the prosperity

of public societies; and indeed all human life, in a manner, depends on such

accidents. 27

Hume wonders why God cannot manipulate all of these “accidents” for the good of

mankind. “A fleet,” for example, “whose purposes are salutary to society might always be

met with a fair wind.” Whereas tyrants like Caligula or Caesar might be buried at the

bottom of the ocean before they could wreak too much havoc.

The short answer to this question is that human’s need a fixed, inexorable nature

if they are to be able to exercise their freedom. Choices must have foreseeable

consequences if they are to have any moral significance. If God corrected the results of

of every human abuse of free will--if he, for example, made bullets dissolve in thin air, or

distorted sound waves when one attempted to lie--wrong actions would be rendered

impossible. Freedom, moral responsibility, and love would not exist. If the proposition

were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would not be possible for brain

matter would refuse to frame malevolent ideas when one attempted to conceive them.

27 Hume paragraph 195

 Punt 15

In order for humans choice to have any moral significance, any meaning at all,

there must be choices between different foreseeable outcomes. Mathematician,

philosopher, and scientist Martin Gardner extrapolates, “It is not possible for human

beings to exist except in a physical world with an environment structured by natural

laws.” Once again, God could’ve created a world of righteous robots, but instead he 28

wanted to create free moral agents with whom he could foster a real, dynamic

relationship.

VII. Yet another objection and the fall of man.

The free will defense is not yet complete, for a significant deficiency, one that was

made in the 1700s by the philosopher Pierre Bayle, yet remains. Even if God needed to

respect the freedom of his creatures in order to have a dynamic relationship with them,

why did he have to create free agents with inclinations to greed, pride selfishness, and

violence who would exercise their free will poorly? Bayle explains, “If man were the

work of an infinitely good and holy principle, he would have been created not only with

no actual evil but also without an inclination to evil.” 29

Hume fosters similar sentiments. “In order to cure most of the ills of human life,

I require not that man should have the wings of the eagle, the swiftness of a stag, the

force of the ox, the arms of a lion,” but “the endowments of a superior penetration of

judgement, of a more delicate taste of beauty, of a nicer sensibility to benevolence and

friendship.” Why couldn’t God have endowed man with righteous inclinations that 30

would cause him to exercise his free will unerring moral integrity? Christian doctrines

28Gardner pg 260 29Bayle pg 187 30 Hume paragraph 195

 Punt 16

teach that it is possible for a free will to make the right choice every time, for in heaven

saints are believed to have a completely free will and yet never sin. Why didn’t God

“skip” earth and initially create perfect free souls in heaven?

In order to understand the answer to the question “why do we suffer?” and

Christianity as a whole, one must understand the of doctrine the fall. Lewis explains: 31

According to that doctrine, man is now a horror to God and to himself and a

creature ill-adapted to the universe not because God made him so but because he

has made himself so by the abuse of his free will… God is good… He made all

things good… one of the things that He made, namely, the free will of rational

creatures, by its very nature included the possibility of evil; and... creatures,

availing themselves of this possibility, have become evil. 32

It is important for the reader to understand I do not claim our current lamentable

condition is punishment for the act of one man long ago; nor do I claim that we are

guilty for the crimes of our ancient ancestors. Rather, I seek to show there are certain

painful consequences of the fall that are necessary and inexorable. It is possible that God

could have erased the results of the original fall with some grand miracle, but this would

have only put off God’s ‘problem’ of “expressing His goodness through the the total

drama of a world containing free agents, in spite of, and by means of, their rebellion

against him.” 33

31 Chapter five of The Problem of Pain is an excellent source of information on the doctrine of the fall in lay terms, and is one that I will be largely drawing from in subsequent paragraphs. 32 pg 63 33 pg 81

 Punt 17

C.S. Lewis did not use the word drama by accident. It is important to understand

the fall of man as a drama in this regard: it did not take God by surprise; it did not upset

his plan.

Although there is much dispute as to what the stories found in Genesis actually

mean, many Christians agree that at some point God breathed a soul, breathed life,

breathed free will into a human creature and created man. For the first time in our

universe, God created a creature that could say “I,” or “me,” that could look upon itself

as a distinct being, that could understand and appreciate love, truth, and beauty. 34

Pre-fall or ‘paradisal’ man was, in a sense, ‘perfect;’ he experienced no spiritual

temptation as we know it today. To paradisal man, God came first in everything without

any serious effort. God gave man life, strength, and joy and man offered up exuberant

obedience and rapturous adoration in return. As Lewis notes, “in this sense, though not

all, man was truly the son of God, the prototype of Christ, perfectly enacting in joy and

ease of all the faculties and all the senses that filial self-surrender which Our LORD

enacted in the agonies of the crucifixion.” 35

Paradisal man had but one command, “you must not eat from the tree of the

knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” God 36

commanded man to accept His position of absolute moral authority. He wanted man to

serve God’s plan, to follow his definition of right and wrong. Although God, as the

creator, knew that his commands were best for man, he did not force his creation to

obey them, for that would render a free, dynamic, loving relationship impossible.

34 pg 72 35 pg 74 36 Genesis 2:16-17

 Punt 18

What then caused man to commit the extremely arrogant crime of deciding to

reject the will of his perfectly wise and benevolent creator in favor of his own? What

made man decide to know evil through experience? From where came the voice that

tempted Eve by saying, “You will not certainly die. For God knows that when you eat

from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”? We 37

cannot “get God off the hook,” so to speak, by saying it was Satan who tempted man not

God, for God is omnipotent and whoever whispered that temptation is not; no being can

perform any action unless God allows it. Again, why couldn’t man have stayed perfectly

obedient as Christian doctrine teaches we will be in heaven?

Humans have basically two motivations for whatever they do: morality and

self-love. In other words, someone performs an action either to make himself happier,

or because he feels like he ought to do it. It would make no sense for someone to do

something he thought both personally undesirable and morally wrong! For paradisal

man, morality was unequivocally obeying God. Consequently, the act of evil must have

been motivated by a desire to increase happiness. If man sinned out of a desire to

increase his personal happiness, that means God created him lacking perfect

contentment and happiness. Now the question we need to answer is becoming a bit

clearer. Why didn’t God create man with perfect happiness? 38

Many Christian thinkers hold that it would have been intrinsically impossible for

God to immediately have created a being with infinite happiness. A critical part of

infinite, perfect happiness is the joy that comes when a free creature willingly embraces

37 Genesis 3:5 38 Some inspiration for this paragraph came from .God Forsaken pgs 108-109; however, the point I am trying to make here is a little bit different than D’Souza’s.

 Punt 19

the love of his creator and submits to his will in a loving relationship. God cannot force

someone to love him. As a result, He cannot force someone to be happy.

Now in order for an action to be free, there must be multiple alternatives to

choose between. As Lewis explains, “the freedom of a creature must mean freedom to

choose: and choice implies the existence of things to choose between.” In order for 39

man’s decision to enter into a loving relationship to be free, he must have had an

alternative option other than submitting to God’s will and embracing his love.

Consequently, something or someone must have presented man with the option of

becoming his own master, his own god. Something must have whispered to man that he

did not have to rely on God for moral direction, but could decide for himself what was

right or wrong.

Unfortunately, we opted for “knowledge of, and choice between, good and 40

evil--over subordination to God’s supreme will.” Man wanted to be able to call himself 41

his own; to have some corner in the universe of which they say to God ‘this is our

business not yours.’ The consequences of this absurd, impossible wish have given us 42

the current fallen world.

VIII. Consequences of the fall

Before man decided to go his own way, his soul was able to rule completely over

his physical body. This was only possible, however, because God ruled his body through

a soul that was obedient to his will. The authority of the soul over the body was a

39 The Problem of Pain pg 20 40 I mean this in the strongest possible sense of the word 41 D’Souza pg 104 42 The Problem of Pain pg 75

 Punt 20

“delegated” authority which was lost when the human soul “ceased to be God’s

delegate.” Thus, after the soul rejected God, God had to rule the organism through an 43

indirect means, namely, natural laws. The unfortunate fruits of biochemical processes: 44

aging, death, pain, and physical temptation now inflict us because we chose to no longer

be ruled by God’s will.

Even the mind of man became a slave to natural and psychological laws. In the

words of C.S. Lewis, “Thus human spirit from being the master of human nature became

a mere lodger in it’s own house, or even prisoner; rational consciousness became what it

now is--a fitful spotlight resting on a small part of the cerebral motions.” 45

In creating man, God had taken a purely natural being and given him vigorous

spiritual life. After man scorned being ruled by God, however, he had to be once again

ruled by nature. “For dust you are and to dust you will return.” 46 47

Although the loss of the spirit’s power over it’s nature was tragic, the damage

done to the nature of the spirit itself was far worse. Because man had cut himself off

from God’s perfect wisdom, he could no longer rely on God for direction. After the fall,

knowledge of good and evil could only come through painful struggle and experience

because man refused to understand it through simple trust. Furthermore, obedience to 48

God’s will became much more difficult because in the first sinful act, man had effectively

turned from God to himself. Because of the fall, the attitudes of an egocentric

43 The Problem of Pain pg 77 44 D’Souza pg 110 45 The Problem of Pain pg 78 46 The Problem of Pain 78 47 Genesis 3:19  48 D’Souza pg 110

 Punt 21

constitution now come easiest to us; pride, jealousy, selfishness and anger torment us

morning until night. We are in a state where sin inevitable.

On earth there is a paradox: we have the ability to not sin but we always do. In

heaven, the paradox is reversed. Recall that humans have two basic motivations for

whatever they do: morality and self-love (motivation to increase happiness). In heaven

we will be perfectly happy. Consequently, moral duty will be the sole motivation for all

actions because we do not experience the desire to increase happiness. In heaven, we

still will have free will which makes sin theoretically possible; however, no one who has

experienced the ultimate joy of submitting wholly and completely to his perfect creator

will ever relinquish it, for it is perfectly satisfying.

IX. Evidence for the fall

The fall of man is certainly an interesting story, but is there any evidence for it? Is

it evidentially probable that it actually occurred? While empirically scientific verification

for the fall is hard to come by, it has astonishing explanatory power for the state of our

current condition as humans.

Human indignation toward suffering is as undeniable as the fact that suffering

exists. Mankind has always fostered a sense of a ‘paradise lost’. We do more than just try

avoid suffering like animals, we scorn it when it inevitably comes our way. We feel as if

suffering is unjust (that’s the reason I’m writing this paper), and that it ought not exist.

Secular science and philosophy cannot account for this. In Human Happiness, Blaise

Pascal explains,

What is nature in animals we call wretchedness in man, thus recognizing that, if

 Punt 22

his nature is today like that of the animals, he must have fallen from some better

state which was once his own. Who indeed would think himself unhappy not to

be king except one who had been dispossessed? Who would think himself

unhappy if he had only one mouth and who would not if he had only one eye? It

has probably never occurred to anyone to be distressed at not having three eyes,

but those who have none are inconsolable. 49

We find it unexpected and wrong when a fellow man lies or steals or murders. This

implies that there used to be a time when being subject to selfish, natural instincts was

not the norm.

Similarly, suicide and depression do not exist in the animal kingdom, yet in

human society, such tragedies are rampant. Thus Pascal concludes, “If man had never

been corrupt, he would, in his innocence, confidently enjoy both truth and felicity, and,

if man had never been anything but corrupt, he would have no idea of either truth or

bliss. But unhappy as we are, we have an idea of happiness but we cannot attain it.” 50

We are not resigned to suffering like animals. We are scandalized by the pain and

immorality of this world and think it absolutely wrong. We have idealistic goals about

changing the sorry state of this world; animals simply accept. As Kreeft explains, “To

criticize here, you need to know there as a standard. If the only world we ever knew or

remembered was here, we would feel at home here.” We do not feel at home here. 51

Hume’s own laments about the world’s wretched condition confirm that we have fallen

49 Kreeft pg 94 50 Pascal pg 35 51 Kreeft pg 94

 Punt 23

from a more glorious state to which we are trying to return. This attitude cannot be

explained by secular psychology or philosophy, only the fall.

X. Conclusion of the free will defense

Much pain in this world can be attributed to the poor choices made by the free

will of man. God has good reasons to allow such pain. Love by nature must be free; God

wanted to create morally responsible free agents with whom he could have a dynamic

loving relationship. Man used its free will to turn away from God to himself. Our current

lamentable condition is on us not God. Consequently, any good that God could bestow

upon man would be remedial good to draw us away from ourselves and back to the

exquisite relationship for which we were created.

Part 3 More Answers

Although free will is a vital component of any answer to the question “Why do we

suffer?” the free will defense alone is not enough to fully answer it. God, who is perfectly

wise and all-powerful, has greater reasons to allow suffering than the intrinsic

impossibility of controlling a free action. I frequently alluded to God’s ultimate

motivation of having a dynamic, loving relationship with man in part 2. We will more

closely examine such ultimate motivations of God to use man’s suffering in part 3.

XI. The principle of first and second things

In an essay entitled “First and Second Things,” C.S. Lewis described a common

pattern, a principle that any contemplative observer of the world can discover. In the

essay, Lewis notes certain pursuits objectively ought to be valued higher than others.

Simply put, some things are of greater value than others. When the objective hierarchy

 Punt 24

of values is reversed and a higher goal is sacrificed for a lesser one, the lesser goal ends

up being lost along with the higher one.

For example, when one puts a pet, hobby, or sport above a person, he not only

loses a relationship with that person, but also the proper enjoyment of the pet, hobby, or

sport, making it an obsession. Similarly, the man who makes the love of a woman his

chief goal in life ends up not only forfeiting his happiness and friends, but also a proper

relationship with the woman. In Great Gatsby, the titular character dedicates his life to

winning back the love of a young woman named Daisy. In the end Jay Gatsby ends up

having to sacrifice his innocence, his happiness, Daisy’s love, and his life! Clearly, “You

can’t get second things by putting them first. You get second things only by putting first

things first.” 52

There is an undeniable principle in the universe that some things are of greater

value than others, and greater things ought to be pursued with greater fervency than

lesser things. I believe this principle of first and second things can illuminate purposes

God may have with human suffering.

XII. Being good is greater than feeling good.

In order to answer the question why do we suffer, we must answer the question

what is our greatest good? or what gives meaning to our lives? Tragically, such

questions of paramount importance are poorly addressed in modern culture. Because of

the skeptical, pluralistic, subjective nature of our culture, it denies that there even is

52 "First and Second Things." Pg 280

 Punt 25

such an objective highest good. Any purpose humans find in life is relative, contrived,

and ultimately fake.

Although modern culture appears to believe there is no highest goal for humans

to pursue, this is really a deception, a cover-up. It is impossible for humans to live their

lives with no ultimate goal driving what they do. Because our culture has neglected an

ultimate moral purpose-giver, it has resorted to a subjective good, namely

happiness--feeling good--to pursue as the highest purpose of life. It is impossible for

modern culture to see purpose in suffering because suffering is the antithesis of

pleasure, comfort, feeling good. There is no higher purpose worth suffering for.

In order to find a more accurate answer to the meaning of life, we must go

beyond our culture. We must listen to the wisdom of the ancients. The theme that

dominated all the works of one of man’s greatest thinkers, Plato, was goodness. To

Plato, “The Good is absolute, the ultimate reality… Goodness is not just an abstract idea

to be contrasted with the real world. The ideal is real. Goodness is real. Values are not

just human, not just in our heads, not just subjective.” 53

The great thinkers of the ancient times: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle believed

there was an objective state all men should strive to reach. It is our main mission, our

chief end. They called this state “happiness,” but in ancient times the word meant

something far different from “feeling good.” Eudaimonia, the Greek word for happiness

literally means “good soul.” According to the ancients, to be happy is not to feel good, 54

but to be good. Happiness is moral virtue--the perfection of life, character, and soul.

53 Kreeft pg 61-62 *Peter Kreeft is a Yale graduate and professor of philosophy at Boston College 54 Kreeft pg 64

 Punt 26

Jesus Christ agreed with Plato, Aristotle, and the ancient Greeks: “What good is it for a

man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?” If one pursues virtue above all else, 55

he will get pleasure and joy thrown in, but if pleasure is put above morality, not only will

one have a broken soul, but also an empty and miserable existence.

Clearly, if we accept the ancients’ higher view of happiness, God is still all-good if

he sacrifices our temporary comfort for moral perfection which is of infinitely greater

value. Even when we fail to put the greater things first--being good over feeling

good--God is faithful to pursue our spiritual well-being over fulfilling the desires of our

flesh even if this means that he must allow suffering. It remains to be seen what role

suffering might play in the development of human goodness.

XIII. Bad fortune teaches. Good fortune deceives.

If virtue--perfection of the soul--is the highest good, the next question we must

obviously answer is What is virtue? For Christians, the highest virtue for man is to

submit to our creator in a loving relationship. All moral practice will fall into place if this

end is pursued above all others. Forming a relationship with mankind is the reason why

God created us in the first place. It is the reason why Jesus suffered on the cross, and it

is the reason why God allows his creation to suffer today.

As previously mentioned, our fallen status makes it very difficult to obey God

because we are so self-centered. It turns out that suffering, in many cases, is the only

factor that makes the forsaking of the self and the turning to God at all possible. When

we put our will above God’s we are living a lie. We are trying to live as if we are not

55 Mark 8:36

 Punt 27

created beings; we reject the reality of who we are, who God is, and what is good. When

we rebel, God could confirm us in our self-deception by giving us as much pleasure as

possible and removing all pain, but this would not help in the long run. We would be

supported in our rejection of God and therefore all that is true, beautiful, righteous, and

good. It would be a slippery slope into vice, arrogance, egomania--hell.

God cannot forcibly turn us from the descent into self while respecting our

freedom. He can however, plant the flag of truth in the rebel heart. He can shine his

light through the darkness and show the rebel heart that something is wrong, that he is

not right, that his view of reality is severely perverted, that his actions “are not in accord

with the laws of the universe.” God reveals truth to us in many ways, but often the only 56

effective way to impact a recalcitrant soul is through suffering, for “Only when we are

dissatisfied, only when are weak, only when we are failures in ourselves, can God come

in.” As Lewis explains, “Pain is unmasked, unmistakable… every man knows something 57

is wrong when he is being hurt.” Pain is “impossible to ignore… God whispers in our

pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is His megaphone to rouse

a deaf world.”56

When handled correctly, pain, discontent, and frustration causes us to hate our

self-will and turn to God. It uncovers our great self-deception and unequivocally

demonstrates that we are not self-sufficient. In the end we find that suffering turns out

to be a demonstration of God’s humility and mercy; a relationship with God is the only

thing that could possibly give us perfect fulfillment and joy. God is willing to accept our

56 The Problem of Pain pgs 90-91 57 Kreeft pg 152

 Punt 28

love and provide this great gift even after we have examined every other means of

finding happiness and found them empty. God welcomes us to himself even when he is

our very last resort!

In Luke 15 Jesus teaches the parable of the prodigal son. In this profound

narrative, a kind father acquiesces in his son’s foolish decision to prematurely take his

share of the inheritance and squander it on lavish, immoral living. The father’s heart is

broken because he does not want their relationship to be shattered and he knows that

his son’s decision will cause produce only grief and frustration. Nevertheless, the father

acquiesces in his son’s foolish decision. Eventually it takes the pain and humiliation of

having to care for pigs and eat their slop for the son to repent and return to his father.

Although the son had demonstrated he would prefer anything but pigs to his father,

when his father saw his son from a long way off, he “was filled with compassion for him;

he ran to him, threw his arm around him and kissed him.” Such humility! Such grace!

Such love! Surely the LORD is not proud. “He stoops to conquer, He will have us even

though we have shown that we prefer everything else to him, and come to Him because

there is ‘nothing better’ now to be had.” 58

The Bible is full of support for the redeeming, sanctifying effect of suffering. The

greatest saints took a very peculiar stance on suffering. They rejoiced in it. Paul says,

“we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces

perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.” He also teaches that 59

trials can engender inward renewal: “Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly

58 The Problem of Pain pg 96 59 Romans 5:3-4

 Punt 29

we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day.” Similarly, James 60

the brother of Jesus and leader in the church of Jerusalem exhorted believers to

“Consider it pure joy… whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that

the testing of your faith develops perseverance.” God allows suffering to come our way 61

to develop in us that which is far greater than mere comfort: a righteous and hopeful

soul.

XIV. A final word on suffering

This final word on suffering will so much be answers to the question Why do we

suffer?, but rather Biblical encouragement for the sufferer. While rational theodicies of

God’s existence and proofs that he is compatible with suffering may not be very effective

in comforting the troubled soul who is actually in the midst of the valley of the shadow

of death, I believe these two truths found in scripture can give real light, comfort, and

hope to Christians in any situation.

The first powerful promise for the sufferer is found in the book of Isaiah: “When

you pass through the waters, I will be with you… When you walk through the fire, you

will not be burned… For I am the LORD your God.” God promises that he is with us in 62

our suffering and, for this reason, we have the power to overcome. Nothing--not evil,

pain, nor suffering--can separate God’s children from his powerful love. And “if God is 63

for us, who can be against us?” No matter the trial, we will always overcome. 64

60 2 Corinthians 4:16 61 James 1:2 62 Isaiah 43:2-3 63 Romans 8:35-39 64 Romans 8:31

 Punt 30

The second powerful promise for the sufferer is a common theme throughout the

Bible, but it finds its most obvious expression in 2 Corinthians 4:17-18 “For our light 65

and momentary troubles are achieving us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.

So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is

temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.” Do not misunderstand Paul’s description of

‘light and momentary troubles’ as a naive dismissal of the terrible pain many are forced

to experience. Paul of all people understood pain. He lead a life of suffering that

included several arrests, beatings, and a stoning that ended in martyrdom. Paul was well

acquainted with pain, but he understood that when viewed from the perspective of

eternity, the fiercest trouble he might face on earth would amount to nothing more than

a light and momentary struggle. The pain and suffering that we have seen is necessary to

form a free, loving relationship with God will be far outweighed by the eternal joy we

will experience as God’s children in heaven.

XV. Conclusion

Hume was mistaken. Suffering and evil do not preclude the existence of an

all-good, omnipotent God, and they certainly do not contradict the teachings of the

Bible; they fit right in. In fact, if our main concern is not to avoid pain and experience

pleasure, but to find meaning in life and meaning in suffering, the question Why do we

suffer? is best answered from the Christian perspective. We take up our cross to follow

Jesus with a hope of eternal goodness, love, and joy that is beyond compare.

65 See for example 1 Peter 5:10, Romans 8:18-21, Revelation 21:4-5, James 1:12

 Punt 31

References

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica., I Q XXV, Art 4

Bayle, Pierre. "Manicheans." The Problem of Evil. London: Blackwell, 2001.

Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith With Reason and Precision. 

Colorado Springs, Colo.: David C. Cook, 2010.

Davis, Ellen F. "The Suffer's Wisdom."Getting Involved with God: Rediscovering the

Old Testament. Cambridge, Mass.: Cowley Publications, 2001.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006.

Desmond, Adrian J., and James R. Moore. Darwin. New York: Warner, 1991.

D'Souza, Dinesh. Godforsaken. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2012.

Gardner, Martin. The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener. New York: Quill, 1983.

Hume, David. "Part X." Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. New York: Penguin,

1990.

Kreeft, Peter. Making Sense Out of Suffering. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1986.

Lewis, C. S. "First and Second Things." God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and

Ethics. Eerdmans, 1994.

Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. New York, NY: HarperOne, 2001.

Pascal, Blaise, and A. J. Krailsheimer. Pensées. London: Penguin, 1995.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary: Wisdom and Poetry. Colorado

Springs, Colo.: Victor/Cook Communications, 2004.

 Punt 32