"The Alternatives"
At the end of
Chapter 1, Dickson, presented us with a difficult problem. He writes, "the presence of suffering in the world presents not so much an intellectual dilemma for faith in God but an emotional one." Basically, why does God allow suffering and what has he done about it? Before he answers these questions, Dickson delves into how Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Atheism attempt to answer these questions. Later, he will aim to compare these views with those found in the Bible.Suffering as Balance
Here, Dickson presents us with the Hindu explanation of suffering. Hinduism explains suffering as "pay-back", or "Karma". This is a universal concept whereby all actions of the past will be balanced out in the present. When you experience pain and suffering now, it is because it is deserved - you have done something bad in the past. Dickson points out that this "pay-back" view also pops up in the Western world where people view there pain and suffering as "God's revenge". Dickson helpfully points out that this view is "quite foreign to the biblical perspective on suffering".
Interestingly, Dickson argues that the Hindu view of suffering is "quite satisfying and virtually impossible to disprove." But he raises one question from this: "If I were to accept that my suffering is a divinely sanctioned balance for my wrongs, is it possible to find consolation in my pain?". Can a Hindu find comfort in their suffering? No.
Suffering as an Illusion
Buddhism's response to pain and suffering is to view it as an illusion. Dickson explains it like this, "our experience of suffering was intimately related to desire or affection for the things of the world. For instance, the pain of losing my father was caused not by the crash itself, but by the affection I felt for my father." If you can remove your desire for such things, the experience of pain and suffering would be gone. I don't know about you, but I found it hard to get my head around this.
This is a very interesting philosophical concept. But how do you live like this? Well, if you are a Buddhist, you escape the 'real world' in order to 'experience an emancipation from the existence into 'non-existence', or nirvana." You have no desires or affections and so you don't feel any pain or suffering. But, is it really that easy?
Suffering as Determined
Dickinson then turns to Islam and presents its views on pain and suffering. This is rather straight forward. The Muslim understands that "all events in history are absolutely determined: from the falling of a leaf, to the trajectory of an asteroid, all of it is controlled by the will of Allah." Everything is controlled by "the specific finger of the Almighty." So, when a Muslim experiences pain and suffering, it is then an opportunity for them to "submit...to Allah's indisputable will."
Suffering as Natural
Lastly, Dickinson presents us with the Atheist view of pain and suffering. To the Atheist suffering "is just natural, the unhappy by-product of a universe driven only by the random intersection of time and space." It just is. There is "no reason, no design and no pity". Life is just a series of meaningless and random events. To me, this is very depressing.
Well, in response to this chapter, I have a few thoughts I'd like to share:
- In theory, it seems like Hinduism lacks compassion, mercy and forgiveness. If something terrible happens to someone, how will they be treated?
- I found the Buddhist viewpoint hard to extrapolate. I kept thinking, what about physical suffering?
- Siddhartha Gautama, the 'Buddha', developed this view in response to seeing pain and suffering. He wanted to understand its origin and meaning. But, how can he truly understand it without first experiencing it himself? From reading Dickson's book, it does not seem like Siddhartha Gautama actually experienced any suffering, so how would he really know? As Christians, we know that Jesus experienced great pain and suffering. Far more than I would ever experience in my life. He knows what it's really like.
- I guess with the Islamic viewpoint you don't need to question suffering, just accept it. It makes me feel very powerless, though.
- Do we seek a meaningful reason for our pain and suffering purely to make ourselves feel better about it?
I found this chapter quite thought-provoking. I know only a little about other religions/atheism in general, so accordingly I also didn't know much about their interpretations of suffering.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that particularly stood out to me was the Muslim viewpoint. I found it entirely contradictory, and not "simple" at all! I'm still having touble wrapping my head around it, but let's see if I can make this make sense...
Okay, so Allah is the Unmoved Mover. His ways are divine and unquestionable, and therefore there is no option but to submit to his will - asking "why" is a failure to submit. However, Muslims insist that Allah is "a highly personal and involved being". If Allah is personal and involved, it stands to reason that this means he loves his people. If he loves his people, then he must surely have compassion for them, as love is by nature compassionate. Now, to me, my (possibly very limited!) understanding of any religion is that the followers aspire to the teachings and characteristics of the head of the religion. This means that if Allah loves and has compassion for his people, his people must also love and have compassion. It seems to me, however, that "why" is a response to suffering borne of compassion, and "it can't be helped because it is the will of Allah" is about as incompassionate as it gets. Thus a big hole I see in the Muslim viewpoint, and missing in Dickson's discussion.
I hope that makes sense...like I said, my head is still trying to work through this chapter though.
That's an interesting point, Rae. It seems that, when I think about it, most of these religions presented by Dickson, seem to lack compassion. Or, is that comment too superficial? How do we marry the ideas of suffering and compassion? I don't think that we can separate them. They go hand in hand.
ReplyDelete