Introduction
The discussion of the existence of evil and, more importantly, its coexistence with the forces of good as the cornerstone contradiction that may disrupt the very premise of the Divine existence has been discussed in theology for centuries. The dilemma can be worded in the following way: if God is good and omnipotent, He should not allow suffering to exist; therefore, since suffering exists, God is either not good, or not omnipotent, or both; hence, in His traditional Christian representation, God cannot exist given the presence of suffering in the world (McGrath, 2016). However, the described dilemma seems to owe its presence to the misrepresentation of the foundational concepts of the Christian faith as it is viewed from the tents of theology. Namely, the concept of suffering is seen in its traditional interpretation as opposed to the exploration of the meaning with which it is imbued in the context of Christian theology.
Thesis Statement
Although the idea of God’s existence being incompatible with the presence of suffering and pain experienced by innocent people, including Christians, does seen to falter, the interpretation of suffering as the experience that will lead to spiritual cleansing and the ultimate salvation makes the statement about the incompatibility of God’s existence and human suffering invalid.
Argument in Support of the Thesis
The notion of evil as the manifestation of supposedly inherent contradictions within the framework of Christian philosophy lies on the surface and might seem as self-explanatory. However, delving further into the analysis of the represented notions and the relationships between them, one will realize that the presence of the specified elements, namely, the good, the evil, and suffering, only supports Christian ideas.
Known as the logical problem of evil, the dilemma in question can be resolved when approached from the standpoint of soul-making theodicy. Namely, to prove that the presence of evil does not deny the possibility of an omnipotent and benevolent God existing, one should consider the idea that resisting the temptation of evil, one paves the way to becoming good. Thus, without evil, the notion of goodness and the concept of virtue would have ultimately been rendered pointless (Peckham, 2018). Applying the specified logic to the issue of suffering as the possible argument against the existence of God, one could argue that the suffering observed in the human world serves as the balance to the environment of heaven, which is completely devoid of suffering. Thus, the fact that all people, including innocent ones, experience suffering at some
Moreover, the argument in question needs to be approached by redefining the notion of suffering from the standpoint of Christian theology. Although suffering is typically viewed as an inherently atrocious phenomenon, in the Christian ethics, suffering may be represented as a part of the journey toward redemption and, ultimately, salvation (Jones, 2017).Therefore, the idea of suffering as the actual evidence that disproves the existence of God appears to be lacking in substance. Moreover, the assumption that the presence of evil denies the existence of God shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian ideas and the philosophy of Christianity, in general. Instead of delving into the complex relationships between the notions represented in Christian theology, the proposed statement introduces a contradiction that neglects the very essence of good, evil, and suffering as they are represented and defined in Christianity. Therefore, the idea that the existence of suffering eliminates the possibility of God’s presence is unsubstantiated.
Finally, the argument in question should be explored from the perspective of free will. Although the presence of free will as a possibility is a separate question in itself in Christian theology, it needs to be incorporated into the analysis in order to demonstrate the erroneous presuppositions of the opposing argument. Thiselton (2015) makes an important claim concerning people having free will and, therefore, are capable of choosing between the path to salvation and the road that leads to sin. Using the specified perspective as the basis of the analysis, one will realize that the presence of suffering in its Christian understanding as the method of cleansing oneself from the original sin represents one of the two options that an individual may take.
Counterarguments: Assessment
The opposing views expressed in response to the idea that God should not intervene with people’s redemption and offer them the possibility of free well is typically based on the premise of suffering stemming from evil being unleashed onto the humankind. The sentiment expressed in the specified premise, which suggests that imposing suffering on people does not align with the Christian notion of kind and omnipotent God appears to be reasonable on the surface. Moreover, the specified statement has substantial academic support in the existing literature./ Velasquez (2016) summarizes the main conflict observed by the opponents quite eloquently: “There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true the third would be false” (279). Indeed, applying the basic logical perspective, the coexistence of God and evil does not make sense since the two are in direct opposition to each other.
However, as explained above, the idea of approaching the notion of suffering solely as the product of evil that has been imposed on people for the purpose of making them experience pain does not align with the existing Christian theological position on the subject matter. Therefore, even the opposing views indirectly support the idea that the presence of suffering not only does not contradict the existence of God but also supports it. Therefore, the main error that the counterargument represented above makes is the failure to approach the notion of suffering from a theological and Christian perspective, instead, applying the traditional unequivocal ethics. However, when abandoning the secular notion of suffering and viewing it from the perspective of Christian theology as a path to redemption, as well as the presence of free will, the reconciliation between the two notions becomes possible.
Conclusion
Although the impossibility of innocence being subjected to suffering given God’s supposed omnipotence and goodness might seem legitimate at first, a closer inspection of the Christian interpretation of suffering will allow viewing the specified situation as the path toward salvation for the humankind. Since every person is born with the original sin, the concept of innocence as the inherent characteristic of virtuous people appears to be invalid. In turn, suffering as the experience imposed on people by God may be interpreted as undergoing the process of cleansing oneself from the original sin and reaching true state of virtuousness. Consequently, the presence of suffering may be the actual evidence of God’s infinite kindness and omnipotence since it offers people a path to redemption despite the presence of the original sin engrained into them from the moment when they are born.
References
Jones, C. (2017). Why does God allow evil? Compelling answers for life’s toughest questions. Harvest House Publishers.
McGrath, A. E. (2016). Christian theology: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
Peckham, J. C. (2018). Theodicy of love: Cosmic conflict and the problem of evil. Baker Academic.
Thiselton, A. C. (2015). The Thiselton companion to Christian theology. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Velasquez, M. (2016). Philosophy: A text with readings. Cengage Learning.