Q&A: Following a Debate Regarding the Question of Suffering in the World
Following a Debate Regarding the Question of Suffering in the World
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I heard a debate of yours that touched on the question of evil and suffering in the world.
If I understood correctly, you give up on both sides: you said that the Holy One, blessed be He, is not wholly good (because He chose to create a world in which we have free choice to do bad things as well), and He is not omnipotent because He chose to create a world that contains a system of laws to which He too is subject.
Your argument was that it is impossible to change the fact of suffering within the existing system of laws without changing the whole thing. You said that it is a logical contradiction to create a better world that still contains free choice and the same system of laws.
On the theoretical level I understand the argument, that it is a logical contradiction like a circle with three sides; it is simply a conceptual mistake. It is very hard for me to apply this to the world of good and evil, to say that any prevention of evil in the world would constitute a logical contradiction to the existing system of laws.
I have no way to refute your claim directly, but I would like to understand it more deeply. Thank you.
Answer
That is incorrect. The Holy One, blessed be He, is completely good and also omnipotent. But there are constraints that cannot be overcome.
I explained this in my columns on evil in the world. Search for them here.
Discussion on Answer
And in my view, it is cruel to make these laws of nature that He chose. With all the explanations there may be, the cruelty of these laws of nature is still not justified. All the more so according to your view, that everything is from the nature He chose and there is no special intention—rather, when a person has a disease with terrible suffering, it comes from the nature that God chose because God wants free choice, and because of that He chose the laws of nature. That itself is the difficulty: why did He choose nature at all, any nature at all, if it would cause unjustified suffering? That proves He is not good—except that I believe He is good.
There is still no explanation why He chose free choice if complete evil would come out of it.
David,
You can say anything. You can also say that for Him 2+5 = 14.3. But then you have stripped all content from speaking about Him.
Aharon,
I don't understand the questions. I explained everything.
In honor of the Rabbi, I read the article. I have a question: why can't one say that God is good and moral, but we cannot understand this with our logic and intellect, because God is a reality that cannot be seen tangibly, and therefore we cannot understand His actions—even if they are not moral according to our understanding—because He is beyond what can be seen, and His actions too are beyond intellect, and “the Lord is righteous” is a matter of faith? Why is there no such thing as faith regarding God's actions, just as we cannot see Him?
Also, when a person has a serious illness, can't he strengthen himself by saying that everything is from Heaven and that there is a guiding hand from Him directing him to change himself in certain ways, while he strengthens himself with “the Lord is good to all”?
And you also say that there is no providence today—so how do you explain suffering that existed in the past, when there was providence?