Suffering Caused by Humans

The Magis God Wiki: Suffering Caused by Humans

Why Would God Allow Suffering Caused by Human Beings?

© Robert J. Spitzer S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

Introduction

The following UNIT assumes:

1. That God has destined human beings for eternal life (see UNITs B&C), that God is unconditional love (see UNIT J), and therefore, that God destines all of us for eternal life in His unconditional love.

2. In view of this, one might ask the question, “Why would a loving God have allowed suffering to occur?”

As will be seen, there are several reasons why God would allow suffering to occur in the world, but if God is unconditional love, then all of them would have to be linked to the advancement of love. Thus, if God allows human beings to cause suffering to one another, He does so for reasons of advancing the free appropriation of love; and if God created an imperfect world with natural laws which indirectly cause suffering (see UNIT L), He would have done so for the same reason. In this view, God does not directly cause suffering (except to impede those headed toward imminent self-destruction), and if He allows suffering, He does so to advance love and to strengthen His invitation to eternal unconditional love.

Well, then, if God does not directly cause suffering (except to impede those headed toward imminent self-destruction), and is therefore only an indirect cause of suffering, what or who are the true direct causes of suffering? There are two major sources beyond ourselves:

1. Other human beings (individuals or groups – e.g., Joe causes suffering to Mary, or the Nazi party causes suffering to Jewish people); and

2. Nature (e.g., tsunamis, earthquakes, draught, disease, old age, etc.).

There are many nuances and combinations of these two sources of suffering. For example, a preventable disease such as leprosy (a natural cause) is not prevented or delimited by a particular country in order that tax money can be used to incite a new war (a human cause); or a tsunami (a natural cause) hits a particular country, but the country next to it decides not to use easily accessible resources to help because the victims are thought to be inferior and undeserving (a human cause). Many forms of psychological suffering are attributable to such combinations. For example, a person might feel depression because of a chemical imbalance (a natural cause), which causes him to be marginalized by people who are fearful of his peculiar conduct (a human cause), which, in turn, exacerbates his depression and its physical symptoms.

I will treat the first source of suffering in UNIT K and the second in UNIT L. Before proceeding to these two sources, it may prove helpful to review the overriding principle indicated in the last UNIT, namely, that God is unconditional love. For if God is unconditional love, then it would seem that He would not want anyone to suffer. Indeed, it would seem that God should be likened to the most compassionate and affectionate of parents who would gladly suffer in the place of his/her child, but realizes that this child must make her own decisions and must deal with the challenges of life as a free human agent. It seems that an unconditionally loving God would suffer with everyone who suffers, and would redeem every scintilla of suffering through His providence for all eternity. It seems that an unconditionally loving God would allow suffering to occur if it could lead to our choice of a more authentic love and life which could last for eternity. The key thing to remember is that God has an eternal perspective, and if the previous UNIT is correct, then He also has an unconditionally loving perspective. Thus, we will want to look for answers to our suffering which ultimately to an eternity of unconditional, authentic love.

If the above conclusions are at least partially valid, then all suffering has some potential to lead to eternal and unconditional love, and it should not be viewed as a complete negative. Suffering may last for a while, but if we try to cooperate with God’s loving intention, it can be turned into love, and that love will last for all eternity. Even incredible tragedies, like the death of a child, may not be ultimately and completely tragic, for if we cooperate with God’s loving (long term) plan, the initial tragedy and loss can become an instrument of transformation and redemption (and furthermore, the child would be in God’s eternally loving arms). In this view (belief in a loving God), God feels the grief of the loving parents who miss their beloved, and He will feel that grief for as long as the parents experience it; but God simultaneously bestows unconditional and eternal love and fulfillment on the child whose loss is the cause of that grief.

In this view, suffering is complex. It includes the genuine experience of deep grief at premature loss. It also includes an experience of faith or hope that God is already bestowing unconditional love upon this child. It also includes an experience of trust that one will be reunited with that child in the eternity of God’s unconditional love. Finally, it includes a journey – a journey with a loving God to find meaning in the tragedy. Perhaps this journey may lead to a greater sense of contribution, to a deepened sense of empathy, humility, and compassion for others and even to a sense of greater trust in God (see Levels Three and Four of Purpose in Life in UNIT A).

This complex phenomenon will undoubtedly lead to complex emotional states. The important point to remember is that an unconditionally loving God would expect us to feel all these emotions in all of their complexity throughout a prolonged period of grieving. It is therefore important for us not to let one feeling become more important or authentic than another so that the “more authentic one” mitigates or cancels the “less authentic one.” We need to experience “grief – profound loss – hope in unconditional love – hope in eternal reuniting – peace beyond all understanding” all at once, in all its complexity, unmitigated, until Unconditional Love can make transparent sense of it all. This is an incredibly hard thing to do; yet it is a path to the transformation of suffering into love, and therefore a path into the horizon of Unconditional Love’s eternity.

I present the above, because I am concerned that the reader might think that the forthcoming presentation about why God might permit suffering is a bit too philosophical, too clinical, too detached from the real emotion and sadness of suffering. This is not my intention. I do not want to whitewash the true pathos of suffering or present an overly clinical view of it. My intention is only to give a sense of the logical parameters surrounding a loving God’s choice to allow suffering in the world, and in so doing to help the reader clarify his or her thinking, avoid needless pain (arising out of thoughts of God’s heartlessness or abandonment), and to obtain optimal benefit and guidance in finding eternal love through suffering.

The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love

So why would an unconditionally loving God allow human beings to cause suffering to one another? In a phrase, because love requires the freedom to be unloving, and “unlove” frequently causes suffering. In other words, without the capacity to cause suffering (through choices of unlove), human beings could not be truly loving, and this would defeat the purpose of an unconditionally loving God. Why does love require the freedom to choose unlove? If one does not have the freedom to choose unloving behaviors, then one’s loving behaviors are not really chosen – they are merely programmed (like impulses, desires, or instincts). Beings which have no real alternatives are not the true initiators of their actions; they are merely responding to stimuli in the only way they can. Thus, if one’s love is not chosen, one’s love is not one’s own. It originates from a cause other than one’s self.

This insight may be deepened by examining what would happen if God made us incapable of unloving behaviors. Let us suppose that I did not have the capacity to choose unloving behaviors. It would seem that the world would be a better place. After all, I would not have to worry about acting on a greedy impulse that could cause harm to another person; I would not have to worry about insulting my friend out of a sense of fear or pride; I wouldn’t even have to worry about any of the Ten Commandments or the seven deadly sins. I would be incapable of lying, stealing, coveting, egocentricity, arrogance, anger, jealousy, contempt, and all of the other attitudes or dispositions which could cause me to do harm to another human being.

There are a few problems with this “better world,” not the least of which is that my incapacity to act on these harmful dispositions and attitudes would reflect rather poorly on my intelligence and reflectivity – indeed, I would be, well, virtually lobotomized. (Lobotomies were a rather crude but effective means of eliminating overly aggressive impulses in the early days of psychiatry). Imagine, for a moment, that you were not capable of fearing another person’s superior talent – that you were incapable of being jealous or wanting more than you could ever really need. If you were truly incapable of these things, you would either be incapable of imagining them, or you would not have the self-consciousness to want to make those things your own. In either case, your intelligence (characterized by your powers of imagination and self-consciousness) would be manifestly inferior to what it currently is. Without these powers of imagination, you would not be able to create; you would not even be able to identify obstacles to a better life so that those obstacles could be overcome. The limits to your imagination would be the limits to your apprehension of a future; and the limits to your self-consciousness (your awareness of your self) would be the limits to your recognition of your future. You wouldn’t be able to see alternative possibilities in your future – making your apprehension of cause and effect merely a response to stimuli (desire for food → lunge at meat). Cause and effect would certainly not be set within the context of a possible future, but only the satiation of a sensorial appetite or instinct.

Thus, God is caught in a dilemma from the very beginning. If God refuses to create a being capable of unlove, He must also refuse to create a being with the powers of self-consciousness and imagination that would make unlove desirable; and if God refuses to make a being with such powers of self-consciousness and imagination, He would also have to refuse to make a being capable of foresight, self-determination, and creativity. God’s refusal to make an agent capable of unlove is also a refusal to make a self-conscious, creative being. He would be relegated to creating – well – cows and crustaceans.

This supposed self-limitation of God would be contrary to His unconditionally loving nature, for as was implied in UNIT J, it would be just like an unconditionally loving God to want to create “beloveds” with the capacity for love. Now, if God refused to create a creature with self-consciousness and powers of imagination capable of seeing a future beyond mere response to impulse or stimulus (because He wanted to make that creature incapable of unlove), then He could not create a creature capable of love – because love requires freedom of choice, and choice requires the ability to see options in one’s future which may run contrary to impulses and stimuli. Without self-consciousness (the vision of “self”) and the imagination to envision one’s self in opposed future scenarios, one could not be held accountable for anything one did. One would not have the power to choose loving or unloving conduct, because one could not envision one’s self as both doing and not doing such loving or unloving conduct. Choice requires seeing the alternatives. No choice, no accountability – but only response to impulse and stimulus; no accountability, no ownership of an action; no ownership of an action, no ownership of one’s love. Love, in this case, would be merely a response to impulse or stimulus; it would be merely an accident of one’s nature or programming. It would not be chosen. It would not be one’s own. Love which is not one’s own is not love at all. It is merely instinctual behaviors which wind up having positive or beneficial effects. Computers can be programmed to do very positive and beneficial actions (and programmed not to do negative actions), but we certainly would not say that those computers are loving.

In sum, if God were to create a creature incapable of unlove, He would also have to create a creature incapable of love, because the very powers of self-consciousness and imagination enabling one to envision one’s self in the future can lead equally to jealousy or magnanimity, egocentricity or altruism, arrogance or humility, greed or generosity, anger or kindness, hatred or love. To render a being incapable of jealousy is to render it incapable of magnanimity. To render it incapable of egocentricity is to render it incapable of altruism. Ultimately, to render a being incapable of hatred is to render it incapable of love.

God Must Allow Loving Beings to Create Their Loving Actions Anew

There is perhaps a simpler approach to seeing God’s dilemma. If God is to create a being capable of love, then He would have to allow this being to make that love its own; otherwise, the being would be like a marionette – only behaving according to a program or cause other than itself. Now, if God is to allow a being to make love its own, He must allow that being to create its loving actions anew, that is, to have the loving action originate with the self, and not merely with a program or cause other than the self. If this being is to create its loving actions anew, it must have a choice either to perform a loving action or not to perform it. If it does not have such a choice, its actions would originate from programs, instincts, causes, or stimuli other than itself. The “loving” action would not be created anew by the self, and hence, the “loving” action would not belong to the “loving” agent. It would not be love but merely an instinctual, caused, or stimulated behavior with beneficial consequences. Just because my computer’s actions are beneficial to me does not mean it loves me.

God’s dilemma now becomes apparent. If God is to create a loving being, He must create that being with the capacity to create a loving action anew; and if He is to create a being with that capacity, He must create a being with the capacity to choose love or unlove; and if He creates a being with that capacity, He creates the very possibility of unlove leading to suffering.

Note, here, that God does not create the actuality of suffering in the world, but only the possibility of suffering, by creating agents who have the real choice, the real power, to act contrary to love. God must create this possibility; otherwise, He could not create a free agent, and therefore, could not create a loving being – that is, He could not create a beloved with the freedom to love others with a love that is its own. God’s purpose in creating “little beloveds who are loving” would be frustrated.

Can God Experience a Dilemma in His Acts of Creation?

It may seem somewhat unusual that God could be forced into a dilemma. After all, if God is all-powerful (as God is), it would seem that God could do absolutely anything. But the fallacy of this thought is revealed by a dilemma which most of us heard in grade school – namely, “Could God create a rock so heavy that He couldn’t lift it?” (assuming that God has something akin to a physical body with which to lift rocks). The answer is that the question is absurd because it presents a contradiction.

Recall, for a moment, the principle of non-contradiction – something cannot both be and not be a particular characteristic in the same respect at the same place and time. The word “cannot,” here, means “impossible,” which means it is not possible for this to occur under any circumstances – even through divine power. Impossible is impossible in all circumstances, places, times, and universes.

How can we understand this? Let’s take a block of wood, for example. The principle of non-contradiction tells us that the block of wood cannot be in both the shape of a square (four inscribed right angles) and the shape of a non-square (say, a circle, with no inscribed right angles) in the same respect (i.e., the same area) at the same place and time. In other words, our block of wood cannot be a “square-circle” of the same area in the same place and time. But it’s not only the block of wood; it is also in your mind. Go ahead and try it. Envision a square-circle in the same area at the same place and time. Go ahead. Having difficulties? Of course, you can flip back and forth between square and circle, but you cannot conceive it at the same place and time. The principle of non-contradiction would hold that even God cannot conceive of a square-circle with the same area at the same place and time – that even God would have to flip between square and circle.

Why? Because the inability to combine square and circle is not about the limits of human power or the human mind; it is not about the limitations of divine power or the divine mind; but rather, it is about the exclusionary properties of boundaries – the exclusionary properties of anything which is finite. The first thing one learns in elementary logic is that boundaries (finites) which are on the same generic level exclude one another from themselves. The boundary of “four inscribed right angles” excludes the boundary of “no inscribed right angles” from itself in the same respect at the same place and time. That’s what boundaries do. Thus, when God created any boundary or any form of finitude, He simultaneously created the exclusionary property of that boundary. That is, He created boundary A’s exclusion of “all boundaries non-A” from itself. When God created protons, He also created their exclusion of electrons from themselves in the same respect at the same place and time. So also, when God created wave behaviors, He simultaneously created their exclusion of particle behaviors from themselves in the same respect at the same place and time, etc. That’s the nature of finitude – it cannot be other finites in the same respect at the same place and time. If God did not want to create “exclusion,” He could not have created finite realities.

The only being which could be absolutely inclusive (that is, which would not exclude anything from itself) would be one which has no boundary or finitude whatsoever – it would have no intrinsic boundary or extrinsic boundary. It would not be conditioned by space or time. It would not be restricted to any magnitude or quantity; it would not even have a particular way of acting (like a wave, or a particle, or a proton, or an electron). It would have to be pure acting, pure act, pure power, pure existence, without any way, magnitude, quantity, or spatio-temporal condition – just pure Being. We would call that “God.” The moment being has a boundary, it would cease to be purely inclusive, and would begin to exclude other boundaries from itself; just like squares excluding circles, or proton behaviors excluding electron behaviors, or wave behaviors excluding particle behaviors, etc.

God does not exclude anything from Himself because God is compatible with every boundary. Why? Because He, Himself has no boundaries which would exclude other boundaries. We might now return to the idea of God creating a rock which is so heavy He cannot lift it. We can see now that this is an absurd proposition because God doesn’t have a “body” – a finite physical form – which lifts rocks. All rocks are completely compatible with the divine nature. A finite physical body would have intrinsic limits to its rock-lifting capacity, and therefore, there could be rocks that it could not lift.

Nothing is intrinsically contradictory to God, because God is purely inclusive (pure act, pure power, pure being); but anything other than God (which would have boundaries to action, power, or being) would exclude other boundaries (on the same generic level) from itself in the same respect at the same place and time. God cannot force a violation of the exclusionary property of boundaries – He cannot create a contradiction. The only way God could avoid such exclusions or contradictions is if He didn’t create any boundaries or finitude in the first place. Thus, the moment God created finitude, He subjected Himself to dilemmas, that is, He had to respect the exclusionary property of the boundary that He created. The fact that there cannot be a square-circle is not a problem with divine power or the divine mind; it is a problem with the exclusionary property of the boundary of square or circle. As noted above, it really does not matter where that boundary exists – in a block of wood, a human mind, or the divine mind. Boundaries will exclude other boundaries from themselves on the same generic level in the same respect at the same place and time.

The Divine Dilemma in Creating the Capacity for Love

Now, we may return to the divine dilemma with which we began. Given that God can get into dilemmas because of the finitude of His creation, it should not be surprising that God cannot create a creature with the capacity to own its own love (to initiate a loving action anew) without simultaneously creating that creature with the choice (capacity) for unlove (with the consequences of human suffering). If God wants to create a truly loving creature (beyond a mere marionette), He will have to create the very possibility of unlove, and the very possibility of human suffering. Human beings took care of the rest. In their God-given autonomy and freedom, they seized upon the possibility of unlove, and so human suffering entered the world.

We cannot be angry with God for creating the possibility of suffering, for we, in fact, made it actual. Moreover, the reason He created the possibility of suffering was to make us “beloveds with the capacity to own our own love”; with the freedom and autonomy to originate love anew; with the capacity to love originatively as He loves. As implied in UNIT J, this incredibly important capacity to love is our happiness, our creativity, our eternal future, and our highest calling. It therefore seems to me that this precious gift of love is worth the price of suffering – even tragic suffering. I believe that God made the right choice, because I wish not only for myself, but for the whole of humanity, a status beyond that of a marionette – a status commensurate with the very love of God.

Could God Eliminate Human Evil through Continuous Miraculous Intervention?

There is one more question which frequently comes up in my discussions with students, namely: “Even if God had to create the possibility of unlove (and suffering) in order to enable us to love, couldn’t He situationally prevent some human evils by a little miracle, or by a little conspiracy of providence? Couldn’t He have seen how awful Hitler was going to be? Couldn’t He have, well, caused Hitler an early demise by some means that at least looked natural? Couldn’t He have anticipated the effect Stalin would have on history and allowed at least one of those assassination attempts to ‘hit home?’ And, in my own life, couldn’t He have seen the devastating effect of Joe X’s action and have caused Joe to get really sick for a week at the time he hurt me so much? And while I’m thinking about it, couldn’t He have also caused a car to hit that man who kidnapped that little girl? And couldn’t He have prevented me (in some very gentle way) from hurting that person who was my lifelong friend? And while I’m at it…. I don’t expect God to make these interventions every day; just on really urgent occasions.”

There can be little doubt that God does intervene in our lives through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (in our own lives and the lives of people around us), in little and great conspiracies of providence, and even in outright miracles. But these occasions are rare – very rare – because they truly represent interruptions in the free action of human beings. If God interrupted occasions of unlove or evil every time we would like Him to, none of us would have any sense about the efficacy of our actions (or anybody else’s actions, for that matter). We would never know whether, on this particular occasion that I am contemplating unlove, the bolt of lightening would come from the sky in the form of an interruption – say, an inability to speak, a sudden lapse of intellection, a pain in the heart, or getting hit by a car. The whole world would be waiting for a sword of Damocles to drop on them because the frequent occasions of God “stopping evil at the times we would like Him to” would interrupt the flow of human action, and would cause a fear of performing unloving actions. Needless to say, this last point would not only interfere with the freedom for unlove, but also the freedom to love which is inextricably tied to it (as seen above).

In this scenario, God becomes the giant behavioristic conditioner in the sky. He so frequently lowers the boom on anticipated evil that He conditions most people (out of fear or desperation) to avoid evil. Unfortunately those people did not choose to avoid it, but rather reacted to the continuous negative stimulus of attempting it. In the end, God would only have succeeded in creating people who treat their boss with respect even though they utterly hate him; or treat their coworkers with respect out of fear of the dreaded boss. Whatever this is, it is not love. If God wants us to choose love, He has to allow us the real possibility of unlove, a real possibility which is not cloaked in fear, hindrance, and retribution.

But it may be objected, “Well, okay, skip the idea of God preventing evil every time we want Him to. Couldn’t He just make an exception for really terrible cases, like Hitler and Stalin? Couldn’t He just have eradicated them?” Unfortunately, He cannot. Because if Hitlers and Stalins always met an early demise, human beings would eventually figure out that there was a line which cannot be crossed, and an entire science would arise to predict where that line is. We would be like frenzied lawyers attempting to find the precise point at which one crosses the line from legal to illegal – locating excusability and deniability, mounting up the case law to prove that one can go to the very edge without crossing it. When does one become Hitler or Stalin? When does one become a tyrant? Aren’t there many Hitlers and Stalins who just never had the right historical opportunity to put their plans into practice? Or should God lobotomize only those Hitlers and Stalins that do have historical opportunities? Would other Hitlers and Stalins not follow in the old ones’ wakes?

And what about Hitler and Stalin, themselves? Wouldn’t God want to hold out the possibility of their redemption (even though their actions are evil and hateful)? If God’s love is unconditional, then He could not reject even really terrible people if there were even a glimmer of hope for conversion.

We may now draw a general conclusion. The problem with God eradicating only some really terrible people is that human ingenuity will discover it, and when it is discovered, the process of conditioning (on the basis of fear) will begin. People of common sense will not approach the line even though they desire it; and the ones who would approach the line wouldn’t have a chance. They’d be dead or rendered incapacitated before they knew what happened to them. God must avoid this kind of behavioral conditioning in all its forms; for it interferes with our freedom for unlove in all its forms, which ultimately interferes with our freedom to love in all its forms.

God so loves the world, and God so wants us to love one another, that He will respect our freedom, and restrain Himself from interfering with that freedom, even in the most egregious situations and with the most egregiously offensive people. The price of love is not only the capacity for unlove, but the real possibility of unlove.

We now proceed in UNIT L to a discussion of the next extrinsic source of suffering and evil, namely, suffering induced by natural causation.