The Problem of Pain - Essay Example

?Lele Fu (ID # 107342072) Patrick J. Casey PHI 108 13 May Argument Analysis III: The Problem of Pain The Problem of Pain C. S. Lewis begins with the claim that pain exists in the world. He presents the problem of pain as follows: God, who is benevolent and omnipotent, created the natural world. So if pain exists in the world, then how can God, who is benevolent and omnipotent, be the creator of this world? If God were benevolent, then he would not allow pain and suffering to exist, more so, be experienced by his creations. And if God were omnipotent, then he would do everything in his power to eradicate the existence of pain and suffering in the world. However, it is a fact that pain and suffering do exist in the world, and its occurrence is beyond our control, for the very concept of God is pre-established in our ontology, for, by definition, we understand God as a benevolent and omnipotent creator. Thus, if God were not benevolent, then there would be no problem of pain and suffering. Therefore, either God is not benevolent or he is not omnipotent, or he is not benevolent and omnipotent. 2. Reconstructing the Argument of Pain The argument can be logically reconstructed as follows: 1. God is the benevolent and omnipotent creator of the natural world 2. If God were benevolent, then pain and suffering would not exist in his creations 3. If God were omnipotent, then he would everything in his power to eradicate pain and suffering. 4. Pain and suffering nevertheless exist as experienced by God’s creations 5. God could not have created pain and suffering, for that would contradict his benevolent and omnipotent nature 6. Therefore, given that pain and suffering exists, either God is not benevolent or is not omnipotent, or is neither benevolent nor omnipotent. 3. Analysis and Evaluation To begin with, premise one is a given premise, which is assumed in the exposition of the problem of pain, that is, that God is a benevolent and omnipotent creator, who is responsible for the creation of our world. So far, this premise does not pose any problems; it is true. The second premise follows from the first premise, since, if God were benevolent, then he would not allow pain and suffering to take place in his creations. So this premise is also true, by virtue of God’s definition. Likewise, third premise follows from the first and the second, for if God were omnipotent, then he would use his powers to eradicate pain and suffering, since by nature, God is benevolent. Thus, the third premise is also true. However, things get a bit more complicated come the fourth premise, which states that pain and suffering exist as experienced in God’s creations. As C.S. Lewis explains, this is problematic for the main reason that what we experience as ‘pain and suffering’ in the natural world may not be ‘pain and suffering’ for God. Likewise, what we understand as ‘benevolent and omnipotent’ may not be the same as God’s understanding of ‘benevolent and omnipotent.’ This complexity is exemplified due to structure of our language. We understand good and evil to be two conflicting terms for instance. So the problem of reconciling good and evil becomes a problem only because we understand these concepts to conflict with each other. Based on the problem of pain, it was proposed that it is due to God’s benevolent nature that the problem of pain becomes a problem; that if God were something other than benevolent, then the problem is solved. This is evident in premise five, wherein it was shown that God, who is good, could not have created something that was not good, that is, pain and suffering. It is in this regard that the author concludes that either God’s omnipotence or benevolence, or both, is thus questionable. However, I do not think that this conclusion will suffice, for the transition from premise five to its conclusion misses an important point. This is as follows: Following premise four, premise five states that “God could not have created pain and suffering, for that would contradict his benevolent and omnipotent nature.” Given this, the conclusion suggests that we either reject God’s benevolence, omnipotence or both. But can we really, by rejecting God’s benevolence and/or omnipotence, resolve the problem of pain? Intuition would tell us that this would indeed solve the problem. However, in the remaining part of this essay, I shall argue that by rejecting the benevolence and omnipotence of God, we do not resolve any such problem at all; rather, we dissolve the problem of pain thereby missing the point. As stated above, the problem of pain is concerned with the question on how can a God, who is benevolent and omnipotent, be the creator of this world where pain and suffering exists. Given this problem, it was proposed that therefore, we ought to reject God’s benevolence and/or omnipotence. Thus we can derive the following proposition, “it is not the case that God is benevolent and/or omnipotent,” as the rejection of God’s aforesaid qualities. Herein, I argue that we cannot resolve the problem of pain in this manner, that is, by rejecting the benevolence and/or omnipotence of God, for rejecting the qualities that define God would nullify the existence of such a God. If something other than a benevolent and omnipotent creator existed, then that would not be God. And if God did not exist, then it would not matter whether or not pain and suffering exists in the world, since we would not have a concept of “benevolence” and “omnipotence” to problematize with the existence of pain and suffering in the world. Therefore, by rejecting any one or of both of God’s qualities, we do not pave the way towards resolving the problem of pain; rather, we end up dissolving the problem and thereby missing the point. It is in this light that any attempt to resolve the problem of pain by questioning God’s benevolence and omnipotence, as what was shown in the article, is logically impossible. Works Cited Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. New York: Simon & Schuster, n.d. Print. Read More