One of the most popular and emotionally compelling arguments against the existence of God is the problem of suffering. The argument goes something like this:
- Necessarily, if there is a God, there would exist no pointless suffering.
- Pointless suffering exists.
- Therefore, there is no God.
The empirical premise (premise two) requires that, if there were reasons for God to allow incidents of suffering, we would probably be able to identify these reasons (in all cases).
Skeptical theism responds to this argument by pointing out that our knowledge and ability to understand the world are limited. We are in no position to make all-things-considered judgments about God. We don’t fully understand this world, how can we expect that we could fully understand any “spiritual dimensions,” beings, the effects of this life on any “next life,” God, etc. should such things exist? Therefore, according to skeptical theism, it is unreasonable to claim that we could (or probably could) identify a greater good necessarily associated with every incident of suffering.
It should be noted that there are many different formulations of the problem of suffering, and skeptical theists also offer a number of different and more nuanced arguments than the one briefly described here.
What do you think about the problems of suffering and evil? If you think skeptical theism is wrong, why do you think it is wrong? Are there other objections to the problems of suffering and evil that you find compelling?