The Problem of Evil and the Problem of Suffering

By "suffering" I mean pain, whether physical or emotional.
By "evil" I mean moral evil, i.e., sin, wickedness.

It is important to keep these distinct. For one thing, not all suffering is evil - it was a good thing that my parents disciplined me, even though it hurt sometimes. In addition, while evil acts may cause suffering, a person can have evil thoughts without acting on them and thus there can be evil without (overt) suffering.

Because suffering and evil are two different things, the so-called "problem of evil", a popular objection to theism, should be distinguished from the "problem of suffering".

To appreciate the importance of the distinction, consider this claim attributed to Socrates:

It is always better to suffer evil than to do it.

His rationale is that doing evil harms the most important part of you - your soul. Suffering can only harm the body. Others can inflict suffering on your body, but only you can harm your soul. To the extent that your soul is unhealthy, you cannot know real happiness, joy, peace, or love. By contrast, a person of exceptional virtue can know real happiness, joy, peace, and love in the midst of intense suffering.

Now, I think Socrates is right about this. Indeed, I think the Socratic principle is foundational to morality, as foundational as the Golden Rule.

The principle does, however, carries implications that will seem counterintuitive to many:

• It means that you should not do evil even if your own life is at stake.
• It means that the evil in the heart of the rapist, murderer, etc. are worse (objectively speaking) than the suffering of their victims.
• It means that natural disasters are not as bad (objectively speaking) as murder, rape, theft, hatred, envy, etc.
  

I think most of us don't really believe Socrates. We are generally far too caught up in the affairs of this world - the sights and sounds, the hustle and bustle, etc. - to appreciate the depth and seriousness of our own evil. Suffering gets our attention, however. And so we tend to feel that the really bad stuff, the stuff that (if possible) ought to be fixed first in the world before anything else is the suffering that smacks us in the face. Evil, on the other hand, is mostly hidden in the recesses of the heart, where it is easily forgotten.

One's attitude toward the Socratic principle is, I believe, a reflection of one's operant worldview. If you accept a materialist or physicalist worldview according to which you just are your body (brain) and according to which the death of your body (brain) is the end of you, then it is natural (though perhaps not inevitable) to think that protecting and providing for your body/brain should be your highest priority. Socrates doesn't believe that. He doesn't think that you are your body. Rather, he believes that you are your soul and that you have a body. Consequently, he believes that it is very plausible to suppose that the death of your body will not be the end of you. From that perspective, Socrates' principle makes good sense.

This yields a partial explanation of why atheists (who tend to be materialists) think that the problems of evil and suffering (especially suffering) are so bad that belief in an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God is just plain irrational, whereas, in contrast, theists tend to see evil as the main problem, not suffering. Suffering can be a bitch, to be sure, but from a theistic perspective that's the symptom, not the disease. Nor is the death of my body the end. This life is only a way-station before moving to something different, and - if one humbly submits to God - better. So why get hung up over natural disasters and such? We should work hard to ameliorate suffering, but ultimately as a means to healing the soul.

This also yields a partial explanation of why atheists have often been charged with immorality. Clearly, the charge is not a fair one if left unqualified. Many atheists are decent, hard-working, upstanding citizens who would gladly help a neighbor in time of need. But if your worldview is exclusively centered on this world. And if you believe that this life is the only life you've got, then it's hard to see why you should obey the demands of what we might call "higher morality" - especially when it might involve sacrificing your life. For example, if someone gives you a loaded gun and makes a credible threat to kill your family unless you shoot an innocent bystander, do you do it? Socrates would say absolutely not, even if it means your own death by slow torture. His worldview, and the theist's, has a built-in rationale for such self-sacrificial behavior. I doubt, however, that the typical atheist's worldview has enough resources to encourage sticking to moral principle under extreme situations.