When It Comes to Suffering, Stick To What Is Clear

Philosophy can make some things clear about the nature of reality. What does that tell us about the aspects that aren't?

There are some things, philosophically speaking, that we can see clearly. There are other things that are obscure. It is a mistake to allow one to be guided more by what one cannot see than what one can. This relates to matters of religious importance — obviously.

The immediate example is the problem of suffering. If honest, we should admit to not being able to see what purpose every instance of suffering serves. We can speculate, of course, and some speculations are perhaps not entirely wild or implausible, but it would be foolish to say we clearly see what purpose every particular instance of suffering serves, specifically. For that, we would require divine insight.

However, given what is clear philosophically, we should infer that suffering – all suffering – serves some important overall purpose and that no suffering is ultimately gratuitous. We can see, for example, that God exists and is perfectly good. Of course, I am not claiming this sight is immediately available to everybody (though for some people it is), but it is, nevertheless, a sight which can be attained.

Moreover, it is not unreasonable to let what one can see shine light on what cannot see. If one thinks, for example, that they can see the foundation of reality as perfectly good and wise and just, it is quite reasonable to use that line of sight to interpret the shadowy elements of reality, like suffering. That is, to interpret them as serving some ultimate good purpose, even if that purpose is obscure to us.

This is a point Josh Rasmussen makes in his dialogue with Philippe Leon (Is God the Best Explanation of Things, Chap 17), where in conversation about the problem of evil, Josh separates matters that are clear to him from matters that are unclear.

For example, Josh claims the following are all made clear by the light of reason:

-        That the supreme value (= classical theistic) hypothesis is relatively simple (non-ad hoc, non-arbitrary, and easy to grasp).

-        That theism successfully predicts all the features of reality’s foundation that we can be independently discovered, from causal power to moral value to metaphysically necessary existence.

-        That simplicity and predictive success “are marks of our best (most probable) scientific theories.”

-        That any competitive naturalistic hypothesis does not enjoy the same intrinsic simplicity or nearly as much predictive success (“not even close,” says Josh).

-        That the theistic hypothesis removes many significant obstacles, including generating mental reality from mindless, non-sense, or rational thought from a non-rational base, etc.

-        That classical theism unifies reality – every realm is ultimately thought-produced by God.

Josh then articulates aspects of reality that are unclear, including:

-        That bad events, by themselves, always reap some greater good in later episodes. (Maybe they do, maybe they don’t.)

-        What the proportion of bad to good is, or that this proportion is not ideal for the development or help of finite persons.

-        That we would see all the reasons for evil or suffering even if they were there.

-        That are lives are part of some greater soul-building or soul-healing adventure (maybe they are, maybe they aren’t.)

-        That “every crevice in the terrible terrain serves a worthwhile purpose… Yet, I also do not see (not even close) that some crevice in the terrible terrain fails to serve a worthwhile purpose).”

-        “Most significantly, I do not see that the skepticism of these particular things that are out of my sight should make me in the slightest skeptical of anything in my sight.”

What Rasmussen has developed is a restricted skeptical theism, one which does not cast such a heavy skeptical shadow as to obscure everything. Rather, his claim is modest – some things are simply out of sight and it is not surprising that these things are out of sight. Nevertheless, some things are in sight, and those things should provide a way of interpreting what is currently beyond our philosophical or scientific range. In short, stick to what is clear over what is unclear. Reason points to God, thus, reason grounds hope in the face of uncertainty, including catastrophe. Such an attitude toward life is not wishful thinking, but prudent.

PS - I call Josh’s approach The Flashlight Principle.