avatarSahir Dhalla

Summary

The website content presents an argument that the existence of pervasive suffering in the world challenges the notion of a benevolent God.

Abstract

The article examines the philosophical question of how the existence of a benevolent God can be reconciled with the overwhelming amount of suffering in the world. It suggests that the creation of humanity, which is subject to an endless list of sufferings, contradicts the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent deity found in many monotheistic and polytheistic religions. The author references the anti-natalist argument, which posits that existence inherently increases suffering, and cites philosophers like Schopenhauer and David Benatar, who argue that life's quality is worse than commonly perceived due to psychological biases such as optimism bias, accommodation, and social comparison. Despite acknowledging the World Happiness Report and other surveys that indicate high levels of happiness, the author maintains that suffering is more prevalent than happiness, questioning why a benevolent God would allow such suffering or create humans at all.

Opinions

  • The author suggests that the presence of suffering in life is antithetical to the idea of a benevolent God.
  • The article posits that any existence, including human life, contributes to the net suffering of the world.
  • It is argued that humans, due to their capacity for sentience and emotionality, experience a disproportionate amount of suffering.
  • The author references the anti-natalist perspective that procreation is immoral because it introduces new beings to suffer.
  • The article challenges the reliability of happiness surveys, pointing out psychological biases that may skew perceptions of well-being.
  • It is proposed that even the best human lives are marred by suffering, as outlined in David Benatar's work.
  • The author, while religious, struggles with the theological question of why a perfect and benevolent God would allow or create suffering.
  • The article extends the problem of suffering beyond humans to include the natural world, questioning the purpose of animal suffering in a world created by a benevolent being.

There Is Too Much Suffering For A Benevolent God To Exist

Gods exist throughout religions, but the simple act of creating humanity seems to render them more evil than good

Photo by NOAA on Unsplash

Human life is filled with suffering. Every day is filled with an endless list of annoyances and micro-doses of suffering. We feel either too hot or too cold, we feel thirsty and hungry. And that’s just for those of us who are lucky. For the unfortunate, there are years of these small sufferings rather than mere hours. But even for the lucky, it still is quite a lot of suffering. How, then, could there be any reason for a God that is benevolent and selfless?

It is this endless suffering that is synonymous with life that is the basis for an anti-natalist argument. A rather pessimistic philosopher, Schopenhauer, lays out this argument and points out that any existence will increase the net suffering of the world simply by introducing a new creature who has to suffer. The anti-natalist argument uses this premise, that any existence increases suffering in the world, and argues that this is why having children is immoral.

Leaving that whole other debate aside, for now, I want to take a look at God, and how that plays into all this suffering. God, in many monotheistic religions like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and more, is described as an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being. This being knows all, can do all, and is infinitely good. Even polytheistic religions like Hinduism have a god that acts in such a capacity. It is also the case in many of these religions that this God has created the world, and everything in it, including humans. But if God has created every human being, how could we ever say that God is benevolent?

We’ve established that every bit of existence has more suffering than it does happiness, and this is especially true for humans it seems. Humans seem to have a capacity for sentience and emotionality that many other creatures lack (though this does not make us morally superior), and this gives us a deeper appreciation for the miseries and happiness of life. And just by looking around the world today and even at our own individual lives, we can see that the pain far outweighs the pleasure; there is far more sadness and suffering than happiness in the world. We even have more words for pain than we do for happiness.

But some might argue that, no, there is more happiness than suffering in our lives. In fact, that is what surveys like the World Happiness Report seem to show. According to the World Happiness Reports, most countries have above average ratings in terms of happiness. Another survey asks people whether they are “(i) very happy, (ii) rather happy, (iii) not very happy, or (iv) not at all happy,” and the percentage of the population who reports being happy has been trending upwards in many countries including Brazil, Germany, and Russia. Even countries that have gone down like Sweden are still well above the 90s.

David Benatar, coined by a New Yorker article as “the most pessimistic philosopher” anticipates this challenge and believes that those people are mistaken. He points out that the quality of human life is far worse than we take it to be, often because of how acclimated we are to these instances of suffering. In his book, The Human Predicament, he dedicates a whole chapter to examining the quality of human life and shows how even the objectively best human lives are filled with suffering. We are plagued with issues like sickness or allergies and even in good health, most of our days are spent in discomfort. There are physiological issues of hunger, thirst, and excretion. Most of the time, you can find relief for those instantly, but on other occasions, there isn’t much opportunity for that. And the case is even more so for thermal discomforts like feeling too hot or cold, and then we have the issues of tiredness and weariness that get worse throughout the day.

The reason people still claim that their lives are good seems to be because of three main psychological traits shared by all humans: optimism bias, accommodation, and comparison. The first of these, optimism bias, refers to the fact that people’s responses about how happy they are are always disproportionately towards the happier end, and people from all walks of life, when asked to talk about how their quality of life is, state that they are better than the most common level. People are also excessively optimistic about their own futures, despite being pessimistic about the future of humanity or their country in general. But if this was the only issue, then these surveys could simply adjust for that bias. Accommodation, the second trait, prevents that from happening. When we first enter a certain quality of life level, we would compare it to our prior one and respond to questions accordingly. However, over time, our subjective answers to these questions can change as we start to see our current quality of life as the norm and become acclimatized to it. And the third trait that affects the reliability of these claims of happiness is comparison, specifically a comparison to the quality of life of other humans. But what happens here is that we look at other humans and see the same level of suffering that we have, and conclude that that suffering is normal and nothing to be taken into consideration. So our outlook on life becomes far better than our life is in reality.

Surely, if a God is omnibenevolent, then They would have made it so life wouldn’t be so filled with suffering or prevented humans from existing at all. An omnibenevolent God would want what is best for all, and it seems as though no existence is better than any existence in the first place, so why do humans, or any creatures exist?

One argument could be made that, if nothing exists, then God could not be benevolent because there is nothing to be benevolent for. But I would argue that because God is also omniscient, in that They know all there is to know, then They would be able to understand that creating living creatures leads to more suffering, and so would still be able to be a benevolent God. Another religious reason given for human existence is that it is a test for our souls, for them to be able to go to heaven and be reunited with God. But then again, why would souls ever have to be separate from God in the first place. It does not seem to provide any benefit or detriment to God whether the souls are a part of Them or not, as God is perfect, so why create humans?

It might be worth at this point to point out that I am a religious individual, and believe in a God. This question is something that has bothered me for a while and I am still searching for a satisfactory answer. And I know there are other religious individuals who are searching for one too.

This article, so far, has just been about humans, but there seems to be a ton of needless suffering in every realm of this planet, not just in humans. We see species going extinct each day now, countless habitats being destroyed and animals needlessly suffering. Deer burning to death in forest fires and zebras being mauled by lions, long before humans even had the power to affect these situations. How could there be this much suffering when there is a benevolent creator?

Life
Philosophy
Religion
Life Lessons
Stoicism
Recommended from ReadMedium