Suffering

"I can't believe in God because I can't explain the suffering in the world."

"I'm more of a believer in science."

Same person said this and yes, I was eavesdropping on a conversation I shouldn't have been, but I couldn't help but to be slightly frustrated at these statements.

When did God ever say that there wouldn't be suffering? Where in the Bible does it say that?

The idea that suffering should not exist in this world and that there is a god who is out there that will take it away is a purely Western cultural construct. In America, in times of hardship, the prayer often goes, "Lord, please take this suffering away." In other countries (or perhaps it was just this one country - I forget which one though), the prayer goes, "Lord, please help me get through this suffering."

There is an expectation in Western culture (or was it just in America?) that there should be no suffering and when it comes down to it, life should be easy. Yet there's something inherently wrong with this kind of thinking, especially in light of cliche phrases like "no pain, no gain," "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger," etc. Suffering is sometimes necessary in order for a person to grow. Training for a marathon can be painful but also rewarding. Exercising and dieting (i.e. creating a healthy lifestyle) can be painful for people who have certain types of addictions or extenuating circumstances that make it really difficult for them to cultivate that which is good for them. However, to say that one should remove the cause of suffering (especially in the cases mentioned) seems ridiculous and even wrong.

To extend the argument then, how can one say that the suffering, hardship, or problem that a person is going through is something that should be taken away when no one can say how it'll change, develop, or refine the person? Isn't that a little presumptuous? To bring God into the picture, isn't it also to question God's methods?

I suppose the counterargument could mention something about how it doesn't have to be in that manner, but from my experience, people can be so stubborn that only something as jarring as some kind of suffering will change the person. And sometimes, even that does not change the person for the better. So no, I don't think that taking suffering away will actually address the issue.

This goes into the idea of free will because humans have autonomy, which is precisely why things get so messy, imo.

Anyway, my point is that the perception that suffering is somehow bad or wrong is flawed. Now, this is not to diminish suffering and say that suffering is an easy thing to go through. It sucks. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be viewed with a take-it-away-because-no-one-should-go-through-anything-bad kind of attitude.

To address the second statement, the very thinking that science and religion are diametrically opposed is incredibly archaic thinking that has roots in the Enlightenment period (what is that, like the 1600s?). Go to the upper echelons of science, and they will tell you otherwise. Go to the most learned doctors in medicine and they will tell you that they still cannot determine why sometimes certain illnesses and cancers are cured without treatment (because medicine is not an exact science). Obviously, there are opposing arguments, but I feel like the statement that a person "believes" in science and not religion has (again) inherent flaws. In saying this, I also feel like the person is saying that science and philosophy are separate and irreconcilable because what else is religion but philosophies on how to live one's life? If this is truly the case, then what does science say about morality or of how to treat others? The basic idea (ideologies, perhaps?) of science then is that it is good and right for humans to act purely out of self-interest and that greed is simply a by-product of survival. And here we have the problem because such people also say that we shouldn't suffer, yet by believing only in science, humans will be the very cause of such suffering.

I think I've oversimplified the argument in many ways and there are many holes that need to be filled but I'm le tired so we shall stop here.

I'm probably guilty of similar faults as this person who so glibly spouted such ideological inconsistencies but I think that it bothers me, because I've gone through the trouble of reconciling such things (though I'm not quite all there yet and there will probably be more to be reconciled in the future).