Dear Sir:
The "problem of pain" has appeared in recent letters (specifically a Dec. 28 letter and a Jan. 4 "Other Views", implicitly in various letters on Dec. 24 and Jan. 2, 6, 9, 14). I believe the problem and its difficulties should be more thoroughly stated.The problem of pain is a philosophical problem connected with the existence of God. We observe great suffering in the world. We are particularly struck by the suffering of the innocent, suffering so obviously excessive or unjustified that it can serve no conceivable purpose. In such cases a person with the power to intervene would do so. If God is compassionate and all-powerful, why does he not intervene? The obvious conclusion, that God is either not all-powerful or not always compassionate, is forbidden to theologians, who must pursue less obvious, but more orthodox, conclusions. Some examples will indicate the difficulty of such pursuits.
Some pain may be sent by God. We would normally assume that this is justified and that such pain would never fall upon the innocent. However, the first instance in the Bible of God imposing pain happens to be the pain of childbirth (Gen. 3:16).
Some pain is the result of impersonal agents, such as disease. For example, while I was preparing this letter, an MPR program cited world health statistics: over one million children die each year from measles and polio, for which vaccinations cost only a few cents, and over four million children die from other preventable diseases. The nonintervention of God is especially puzzling in the case of disease, as humanity certainly intervenes to help itself and has done so with substantial success. Smallpox, for example, is believed to have been completely eradicated in the world's population, and there has been a debate for some years on whether to destroy the last remaining laboratory samples. A similar eradication of measles appears feasible. If such diseases can be completely eliminated, in what sense were they necessary or justified in the first place?
Some pain is the result of an intentional act by another person. For example, Cain kills the innocent Abel. The "Other Views" of Jan. 4 explains the nonintervention of God as necessary to preserve Cain's free will. However, while Cain's free will has been preserved, the lack of intervention has permanently terminated Abel's free will.
And so on. That suffering is sometimes necessary is clear. That suffering is sometimes justified may be true. But can it be claimed that the totality of pain and suffering endured over the entire history of humanity is, in every case, necessary or justified? The occurrence of a single instance of unnecessary and unjustified suffering would be incompatible with the existence of a compassionate and all-powerful God, and that is the "problem of pain".
Davis Cope
16 January 1998