Isn’t there a way for God to allow us to make meaning without so much suffering?

My response: that assumes that the worthwhileness of suffering on behalf of the subject who suffered is dictated by its necessity.

Value is never assessed through the lens of necessity. For example, due to ChatGPT, students no longer have to learn how to solve math problems out of necessity. However, you’re probably uncomfortable with the prospect of raising an entire generation who relies only on AI to think for them. In this scenario, the value of thinking on your own is not dictated by necessity, but by the worthwhileness of a reality where creatures can engage in such a process.

The philosopher Peter van Inwagen actually argues that there is no such thing as a minimum required suffering at all, because there is always some way to attain a good through a lesser means of suffering. Meaning, there is no possible way (not even for God) to get the highest manifestations of virtue, such as self-sacrificial love and meaning-making, with some minimum required suffering.

The only relevant question at this juncture is: “If a finite creature is to suffer, is there a future for that creature to non-regrettably endorse their existence?” And not in spite of the suffering, but a retrospective resonance with the life they lived, where ultimately the negative impact of their suffering ceases to permanently maim them, where they live good, redemptive, and transformed lives.

On the Christian worldview, that is the fate of suffering.

2 comments