I see as a man, i learn as a man. I understand as a man. I see wrong, I see pain, I feel pain too. I understand as a man. But there is a part of me that feels beyond what I see. Thank you for reminding me to pay attention.
I have wrestled with suffering and things that don’t make sense. Sometimes, it is just overwhelming. I ha ultimately concluded that if Christ suffered, I should welcome suffering because it refines me. Easy to think in my head, difficult to put into practice. Thank you for this!
I believe Nietzsche had an answer to that. (Well, lots of answers, as it happens). 'That which does not kill us makes us stronger'.
The negative emotions associated with suffering are known as 'empathy'. Empathy is a naturally evolving trait in a social animal. Why? Because its lack is detrimental to the survival of both the individual, and the social group.
No offence here, of course, but I see no logical connection whatsoever between 'suffering' and 'whatever definition of something called God one cares to cite'.
Human beings experienced suffering for 300,000 years before any idea of 'God' existed.
I would say the poets have always had better answers to the existence of suffering than monotheism. Especially given how much suffering is caused by the patriarchy itself. But that's just me, a third wave feminist with a poetic soul and a love of the Goddess in my heart...
Still, I love your description of the essence of suffering. That absolutely resonated. And in many ways, it's a psychological reason why many people choose to believe in this 'God', despite its being entirely unnecessary. Are there not other forms of comfort for the suffering? Better forms?
Love your response, Evelyn. I agree that Friedrich Nietzsche argued suffering can produce strength. But what he struggled to ground was the moral “ought” surrounding suffering. At most, a purely material account can say suffering is inconvenient or harmful. What it struggles to explain is why suffering is actually wrong.
Your point about empathy is well taken. Empathy helps explain why we feel the pain of others. But empathy alone only tells us that something feels bad. It does not explain why suffering provokes such deep moral protest in us—why we instinctively say, “this should not be.”
The Christian claim is that this instinct is not an illusion. Suffering is not merely inconvenient. It is, in some real sense, a violation of how things ought to be.
I’d also push back on the idea that belief in God exists mainly for comfort. A God who demands repentance, moral responsibility, and love of enemies is not especially comfortable. In many ways, it is far easier to dismiss such a God than to live under that claim.
None of this is to say faith offers no comfort. It certainly can. But it also confronts us—and often far more sharply than disbelief.
Thank you for reading. Thankful for you sharing your perspective.
Thanks for your sympathetic answer! Very much appreciated!
That's true about Nietzsche and the 'ought' (hence why many think of him as a nihilist - I'd half-agree with that, depending on what mood I'm in, lol). Ironically, I once wrote an essay during my shortlived PhD specifically about the use of the word 'ought' in moral philosophy. It's only peripherally relevant to the current topic, but essentially it's a distinction between 'one must do X' and 'one ought to do X' (or commandment-based ethics and virtue-based (or 'good character'-based) ethics.
If we expand that to the concept of suffering then perhaps we'd get to a suggestion like instead of 'in the face of suffering one must feel X', we say 'one ought to feel X' - or even - 'the existence of suffering doesn't lead to a 'must' be a moral underlying it, but rather an 'ought' to be a moral underlying it.' If that makes sense?
Perhaps what I'm saying is there are other explanations for the profundity and depth associated with suffering (and the experience/perception of suffering). And the experience of suffering is indeed a 'test' of character, or virtue. Of 'ought' rather than 'must'.
All of this, of course, is leaving aside any evolutionary/natural explanations for the depth of human response to suffering (which can be argued, but we'd be here all day if we did that). And especially its 'instinctive' nature.
I would say one of my own instinctive reactions to the monotheistic ideology is 'all the other stuff' that is associated with it. The commandments, I mean. Faith and the comfort of faith are one thing, as is 'being excellent to each other' and suchlike (virtue) - but all the rituals designed to program brains into obedience, social control and so on - these have nothing to do with anything spiritual. An irony here with me is that I am an intensely spiritual person and I have much sympathy with the very earliest (in my opinion) version of 'Christianity' (pre-Paul, that is) - especially the earliest Celtic idea, which had no problem marrying it with native pagan traditions. Mary being Isis, for example. There is, as such, perhaps little difference if any between my faith in the Goddess and all her forms and this version of faith, which lacks all those extra socially controlling aspects more commonly associated with Judaism and Islam. Those ideologies are harsher, it seems to me - and any real deity would not be harsh.
Final thought - I've long considered that one answer to 'why does god allow suffering' is because it enables growth and maturity. Perhaps that's what Nietzsche was trying to get at. There is a learning process in the face of evil. An immunisation against it...
There’s something very striking about the way you framed suffering here, especially the idea that it *accuses*. That word stayed with me while reading.
The image of the town with the fixed smiles and the hidden quarter was such an effective way of capturing that uneasy intuition many people feel but struggle to articulate,that suffering doesn’t merely hurt, it disrupts our sense of how things *ought* to be.
What I appreciate about this piece is that you didn’t rush past the weight of the question. You allowed the tension to sit there for a while before turning toward meaning. That patience gives the essay a kind of quiet gravity.
Thank you for writing something that invites readers to think deeply rather than react quickly. Pieces like this tend to linger.
So powerful. Anytime I experience grief on this side of heaven I’m reminded of the thought “It isn’t supposed to be this way.” Because something in me says I’m made for more.
I see as a man, i learn as a man. I understand as a man. I see wrong, I see pain, I feel pain too. I understand as a man. But there is a part of me that feels beyond what I see. Thank you for reminding me to pay attention.
I have wrestled with suffering and things that don’t make sense. Sometimes, it is just overwhelming. I ha ultimately concluded that if Christ suffered, I should welcome suffering because it refines me. Easy to think in my head, difficult to put into practice. Thank you for this!
I believe Nietzsche had an answer to that. (Well, lots of answers, as it happens). 'That which does not kill us makes us stronger'.
The negative emotions associated with suffering are known as 'empathy'. Empathy is a naturally evolving trait in a social animal. Why? Because its lack is detrimental to the survival of both the individual, and the social group.
No offence here, of course, but I see no logical connection whatsoever between 'suffering' and 'whatever definition of something called God one cares to cite'.
Human beings experienced suffering for 300,000 years before any idea of 'God' existed.
I would say the poets have always had better answers to the existence of suffering than monotheism. Especially given how much suffering is caused by the patriarchy itself. But that's just me, a third wave feminist with a poetic soul and a love of the Goddess in my heart...
Still, I love your description of the essence of suffering. That absolutely resonated. And in many ways, it's a psychological reason why many people choose to believe in this 'God', despite its being entirely unnecessary. Are there not other forms of comfort for the suffering? Better forms?
Sophia beckons...
Love your response, Evelyn. I agree that Friedrich Nietzsche argued suffering can produce strength. But what he struggled to ground was the moral “ought” surrounding suffering. At most, a purely material account can say suffering is inconvenient or harmful. What it struggles to explain is why suffering is actually wrong.
Your point about empathy is well taken. Empathy helps explain why we feel the pain of others. But empathy alone only tells us that something feels bad. It does not explain why suffering provokes such deep moral protest in us—why we instinctively say, “this should not be.”
The Christian claim is that this instinct is not an illusion. Suffering is not merely inconvenient. It is, in some real sense, a violation of how things ought to be.
I’d also push back on the idea that belief in God exists mainly for comfort. A God who demands repentance, moral responsibility, and love of enemies is not especially comfortable. In many ways, it is far easier to dismiss such a God than to live under that claim.
None of this is to say faith offers no comfort. It certainly can. But it also confronts us—and often far more sharply than disbelief.
Thank you for reading. Thankful for you sharing your perspective.
Thanks for your sympathetic answer! Very much appreciated!
That's true about Nietzsche and the 'ought' (hence why many think of him as a nihilist - I'd half-agree with that, depending on what mood I'm in, lol). Ironically, I once wrote an essay during my shortlived PhD specifically about the use of the word 'ought' in moral philosophy. It's only peripherally relevant to the current topic, but essentially it's a distinction between 'one must do X' and 'one ought to do X' (or commandment-based ethics and virtue-based (or 'good character'-based) ethics.
If we expand that to the concept of suffering then perhaps we'd get to a suggestion like instead of 'in the face of suffering one must feel X', we say 'one ought to feel X' - or even - 'the existence of suffering doesn't lead to a 'must' be a moral underlying it, but rather an 'ought' to be a moral underlying it.' If that makes sense?
Perhaps what I'm saying is there are other explanations for the profundity and depth associated with suffering (and the experience/perception of suffering). And the experience of suffering is indeed a 'test' of character, or virtue. Of 'ought' rather than 'must'.
All of this, of course, is leaving aside any evolutionary/natural explanations for the depth of human response to suffering (which can be argued, but we'd be here all day if we did that). And especially its 'instinctive' nature.
I would say one of my own instinctive reactions to the monotheistic ideology is 'all the other stuff' that is associated with it. The commandments, I mean. Faith and the comfort of faith are one thing, as is 'being excellent to each other' and suchlike (virtue) - but all the rituals designed to program brains into obedience, social control and so on - these have nothing to do with anything spiritual. An irony here with me is that I am an intensely spiritual person and I have much sympathy with the very earliest (in my opinion) version of 'Christianity' (pre-Paul, that is) - especially the earliest Celtic idea, which had no problem marrying it with native pagan traditions. Mary being Isis, for example. There is, as such, perhaps little difference if any between my faith in the Goddess and all her forms and this version of faith, which lacks all those extra socially controlling aspects more commonly associated with Judaism and Islam. Those ideologies are harsher, it seems to me - and any real deity would not be harsh.
Final thought - I've long considered that one answer to 'why does god allow suffering' is because it enables growth and maturity. Perhaps that's what Nietzsche was trying to get at. There is a learning process in the face of evil. An immunisation against it...
Appreciate the conversation. Feel free to offer perspectives to other post of mine. Discussion is always delightful.
There’s something very striking about the way you framed suffering here, especially the idea that it *accuses*. That word stayed with me while reading.
The image of the town with the fixed smiles and the hidden quarter was such an effective way of capturing that uneasy intuition many people feel but struggle to articulate,that suffering doesn’t merely hurt, it disrupts our sense of how things *ought* to be.
What I appreciate about this piece is that you didn’t rush past the weight of the question. You allowed the tension to sit there for a while before turning toward meaning. That patience gives the essay a kind of quiet gravity.
Thank you for writing something that invites readers to think deeply rather than react quickly. Pieces like this tend to linger.
Well put
Are you behind NULLsophy on YouTube? I love your work over there, if so. If not, I still love it.
So powerful. Anytime I experience grief on this side of heaven I’m reminded of the thought “It isn’t supposed to be this way.” Because something in me says I’m made for more.
That really puts my suffering into perspective, thanks.