Introduction
People talk about 'the problem of suffering,' but there is no
problem of suffering. To be precise, there is no one problem of
suffering - there are many different problems of suffering. This
is one good reason why there is no
one answer to the problem which satisfies everyone.
There are many problems of suffering, and many answers - some of
which are a good and effective response to some of the problems,
and none of which (in all probability) are an adequate answer to
others of them.
In this article, I'm not attempting to go into any detail. I am
simply aiming to outline the areas and clarify the questions.
Clarifying the Problem
When people start to talk about the problem of suffering, there
are some basic questions we need to ask - and we need to ask these
questions before we attempt to formulate a reply.
There may well be other questions, but these are some of the
most immediatly obvious areas we need to think about.
Details
Content
What is the problem being raised?
In particular, is the problem about...
- The existence of suffering?
- The extent of suffering?
- The experience of suffering?
- The allocation of suffering?
These are very different questions, with very different
potential responses. But people who pose the problem of suffering
are often unable to say which question they are actually asking.
(In my experience, after giving them time to consider, they
usually say that the extent
of suffering is the main issue for them, but one or other of the
other three is also of interest. Do other people find the same?)
Context
When is the problem being raised?
Apart from providing a context for the questions of motivation
and identity, the answer to the question will provide some
essential parameters within which any answer must be provided.
The context will determine, among other things:
- Is the contact interactive? Is there a dialogue, debate or
conversation? Or does the response need to be provided in one
complete chunk?
- Is the problem of suffering a chosen topic? Is it the subject of
a public debate, for example? Or has the subject just arisen,
seemingly by chance, and if the topic is to be followed up, the
participants will have to remain interested and avoid being
side-tracked by other subjects?
- How much time is available, or likely to be available, to
consider the subject?
- Is this occasion the only opportunity - as in a conversation
with a stranger on the bus - or is there likely to be future
opportunities to pursue it?
- Is the interaction formal or informal?
- Is the interaction public or private?
- Is the interaction verbal and personal, or in writing -
using letters, email, pamphlets, or some other means?
Motivation
Why is the problem being raised?
From the work I have done so far, it appears that there are
five basic motives. The first four are common; the final one is
much less common.
- The problem of suffering can be raised by someone who
believes in God and is trying to make sense of some specific
suffering.
- The problem of suffering can be raised by someone who
believes in God and is trying to help other believers make sense
of some specific suffering.
- The problem of suffering can be raised by someone who
believes in God and is trying to help people who do not believe
understand why suffering is not a barrier to belief in a good
and powerful God.
- The problem of suffering can be raised by someone who
does not believe in God but wants to use it as a
debating point in an argument with a believer.
- The problem of suffering can be raised by someone who
is suffering, is not sure whether they believe in God, and is
not sure whether belief in God would help make the suffering
easier or harder to cope with.
Can anyone suggest any other motives which ought to be
considered?
Identity
Who is raising the problem?
My basic assumption in this work is that for a response to be
helpful, it must be appropriate to the individual asking the
question. In other words, it must be relevant to their situation
and address their concerns within a framework and set of values
which they are familiar with and give credance to.
We have already addressed some of the questions of identity in
considering the motivation: are we interacting with a believer who
is suffering or seeking to help others, or a non-believer who is
seeking to demonstrate that such a God cannot exist?
Apart from the question of their motivation, people differ
greatly in their theology and their pracical involvement. I assume
that a doctor or social worker who is committed to fighting
suffering will need a different response to someone who has
no commitment other than to their own personal avoidance of
suffering.
What else do we need to know? Do men and women need different
responses? Do the responses which make sense to people change as
they get older, or when they have children? Does it matter how
they vote, or their level of educational attainment? How do
their religious, ethnic and cultural backgrounds affect the
response? Does a sense of guilt or personal responsibility affect
the response? Does it make a difference whether people feel their
life is stable and mainly predictable, or chaotic and
unpredictable?
And, in thinking about the question (or the suffering which
prompts it): is it current; and is is recent, or something which
has been lived with for a long time?
Assumptions
We make assumptions, which we are frequently unaware of.
When dealing with any difficult question, there are often
important details which are not spoken (perhaps, cannot be spoken)
for many possible reasons. So we should also ask...
- What is not being said?
- What are the boundaries of the problem?
- What 'knowledge' cannot be discussed or challenged in this
context?