I do not intend to engage with Stephen Fry’s recent conversation with Gay Byrne concerning God and suffering, where Fry complained that a good God would not have allowed people to suffer innocently. There are others—those who are more qualified than me—who sought to do so.
For example, an Australian Anglican minister and scholar, John Dickson, responded to Stephen Fry’s complaint in an article published by ABC Religion and Ethics on 18th February 2015. (The article can be found by clicking here.)
I think Dickson made some good points. But to be honest, I thought something was missing when I read it. Then I came across Shane Clifton’s response to Dickson (ABC Religion and Ethics on 26th February 2015). (Click here for the article.)
In his article Clifton, himself being a quadriplegic (and a theologian), does not criticise Dickson in a negative way, but helpfully points out that Dickson and others have “a tendency to talk about evil and suffering in the abstract, too readily setting aside the existential”.
There is much about Dickson’s argument that I agree with, but my concern is one that is inherent to all utilitarian positions. His argument, in sum, is that suffering serves a purpose – that taken altogether, it makes sense in the context of an admittedly mysterious greater good and an eternal promise.
Clifton thinks that there is some truth here, but adds,
Even so, there is a world of difference between the assertion that good can come from hardship, and that suffering is necessary for the good.
In terms of theodicy, the problem with the greater good position, especially with reference to evil, is that it diminishes suffering.
I think Clifton’s point is insightful. I think there is a tendency among Christians today to undervalue suffering. Suffering is not at all pleasant, of course, but one should not diminish it.
Clifton reflects on his own hardship, and says,
I’ve searched high and low for an explanation for my quadriplegia, and tried to imagine the purposes of God in my situation. But ultimately, I’m a quadriplegic because to be human is to be subject to the vulnerabilities and frailties of finite life. To be human – a creature of the earth – is to be born, to grow, to break down and to die, to be limited in power, strength and knowledge, to be fragile and vulnerable . . . It is to have the freedom to think and imagine and to make choices, but also to make mistakes and to live with regret, and to build a life in families and communities, as well as to suffer the mistakes and regrets of others – and sometimes to be subject to horrible evil and unfathomable suffering.
Here is Clifton’s critique of the modern society.
One of the problems of modern society, with all of its medical and technological wonders, is the implicit demand that we should live forever in perfect health . . . we worship a photo-shopped image of beauty, and in consequence, suffering, disability and fragility come as a complete and utter shock.
I think, we should listen to Clifton. I am no expert on the topic, but I think we his article provides insights that Dickson did not mention in his earlier article. I appreciate Dickson’s attempt to respond to Stephen Fry, but I think Clifton’s response is particularly valuable.