Religious/Secularists View of Sufferings

Abstract

Are religious and secularists beliefs that much different when it comes to human suffering, or are we more alike than what we would think.

In the movie, The Pianist, the main character is a Jewish man who is put in the Jewish ghetto in Germany. One day while walking down a narrow abandoned path, two young boys quickly run past. He stops and turns to look behind as sudden loud blows and screams are heard. There is a third child stuck halfway through an opening in the brick wall the Germans built to hold in their despised captives. He runs to the child and begins pulling his arms struggling to free him from his torture as more blows are inflicted, eventually leaving the boy listless. Finally, he is able to pull the limp body through the hole and attempts to hold him up. The damage to the young body is fatal and he slowly dies in his arms. Gently he places the body on the ground and silently walks away with a blank stare. The pianist survived the war, went on to continue playing the piano and spoke about his experiences as a “survivor”, but they did not leave him unscathed.  

Although I am and have been active in my religion, I still do not comprehend innocent suffering. I understand what I have been told throughout my life; however, there is still the question in the back of my mind as to why it has to be that way. Nothing has truly ever satisfied me. This does not make me any less devoted to my faith; it just leaves me feeling that perhaps the answers will be more perfectly understood in the next life I believe is to come. For an innocent child to suffer makes no sense to me. To have men, women, and children chopped into pieces in the name of genocide as in Africa, or Isis going from town to town torturing and cutting off heads claiming their religion is to eliminate all infidels is insanity. The closest thing that has made sense has been when my friend said, “Because Satan has dominion over the earth”. Being religious, I do seek a purpose behind suffering to help me find some level of peace on the matter.

Most people I have encountered who are religious have had similar thoughts. Although we question human suffering, and not just not being able to afford what our neighbor has, or miss a meal now and then; but true suffering, as shown above, we remain consistent in the idea that faith is needed to survive, and perhaps personal character growth will result from the suffering. Those I have admired most have experienced suffering in some form. Ernest Hemingway states, “the world breaks everyone” speaks truth to me, but the degree of suffering is so vast. He also says that “many times afterward, many are made strong at the broken places”. I agree with that as well, but certainly not for all. I also believe what Kai Nielsen says that “there is an excessive amount of human suffering that neither the religious nor the secularist can explain”. He says that “the religious person needs it to be justified and the secularist believes suffering needs to be struggled against with courage and dignity”. Perhaps the religious also believe suffering needs to be struggled against with courage and dignity, and the secularist may sometimes question the degree of suffering, and internally desire for more to come after this life.  

In observing Victor Frankl's views on suffering there is also the truth. He states, “suffering ceases to be suffering when it finds meaning”, and that “man is ready to suffer on the condition that his suffering has a meaning”. Can not both the religious and the secularists feel the same? I believe our human nature finds meaning in life when we have loved ones when we serve a perceived worthy cause, have fulfilling friendships, or just enjoying the simplicities in life. Frankyl also believes that “to survive alone without meaning is to endure a meaningless life”. Any creature’s will is to survive; our human nature is to survive. Is an animal’s life meaningless, because the animal does not have the intellectual reasoning that humans have? Or does all life have meaning in some measure regardless?  

Lastly, Mencius said, “It is a feeling common to all mankind that they cannot bear to see others suffer.” He also said, “The feeling of distress (at the suffering of others) is the first sign of humanity”. Again, would this not include the religious and the secularists? There are those in the human race that either through religious fanaticism, sociopathic tendencies, excessive abuse, or other ways have lost their humanity. Who would not feel distressed at the suffering of others, instead are callous to suffering? Are their lives meaningless, and if the number is large enough, is it possible that the inhumanity of mankind could destroy all of those who possess humanity?  

For someone to beat a child until the insides of that child have been crushed and flattened while the sounds of pain and terror fill the air with horror, is a perfect example of the lack of humanity. Mankind has shown this lack of humanity throughout history and continues even today across the globe whether religious or secularists.