Understanding non-theistic approaches to the problem of suffering
By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:
• Explain Buddhist and Humanist approaches to suffering without relying on theodicies
• Compare non-theistic and theistic responses to the problem of evil
• Evaluate whether avoiding theodicies makes these approaches more or less convincing
Try to answer each question from memory. Once you've thought about it, click the button to reveal the answer and check your understanding.
In the last four lessons, you studied Buddhist and Islamic theodicies—theological attempts to justify God's goodness in the face of suffering. Buddhism offers something radically different: a non-theistic explanation of suffering that does not require theodicy at all.
Buddhism teaches that suffering is not a theological problem (Why would God permit it?) but a natural feature of conditioned existence. It results from three sources:
All conditioned things are constantly changing. We suffer because we try to cling to things as permanent when they are not. Aging, illness, and death are natural consequences of impermanence, not punishments from God.
We suffer because we crave (tanha) what we lack and cling to what we have. This craving creates attachment, desire, and inevitable disappointment. Suffering is the natural result of this cycle, not a reflection of cosmic injustice.
Wholesome actions naturally produce positive results; unwholesome actions naturally produce suffering. This is not punishment from a judge but natural cause and effect. Over lifetimes, karma accumulates, shaping rebirth and circumstances.
Rather than asking "Why does God permit suffering?" Buddhism asks "How can we end it?" The answer: reduce craving, cultivate wisdom, and follow the Noble Eightfold Path. Nirvana—the cessation of craving and the self—is the goal.
Humanism is a worldview that rejects belief in supernatural beings (including God) and bases ethics and meaning on human reason, science, and compassion. Humanists understand suffering not as a theological puzzle but as a natural feature of a universe that has no creator, designer, or cosmic plan.
Humanism teaches that:
The universe was not created by an intelligent designer with a benevolent plan. Suffering has no cosmic purpose or meaning—it is simply the result of natural processes and human choices.
There is no heaven or divine justice to compensate for suffering in this life. This is the only life we have. Unjust suffering is simply unjust—it cannot be justified by appeal to rewards in an afterlife.
Suffering results from natural forces (disease, weather, aging, accidents) and human choices (cruelty, neglect, injustice, exploitation). These can be understood and, to some extent, mitigated through reason and science.
Because there is no afterlife and no divine plan, the moral responsibility to reduce suffering falls entirely on humans. We cannot rely on God to make things right; we must do it ourselves.
Humanists find theodicies unsatisfying. Consider the Free Will Defence: it argues that God permits evil because God values human free will. But does a just God really require the suffering of innocent people—children dying of disease, victims of natural disasters—to protect human freedom? The theodicy seems to prioritise abstract freedom over concrete suffering.
Or consider the Soul-Making Theodicy: suffering builds character. But does a just God really need to send tsunamis that kill thousands, including children, to develop human virtue? There seem to be more proportionate and less cruel ways to cultivate character.
The Humanist philosopher Bertrand Russell argued: "If I were to suggest that between the Christian and the Jews a difference is a difference of ethical and of social outlook, you would say it would be a very wicked thing to suggest. But I maintain... [that] the Christian God is not a good God." Russell pointed out that accepting these theodicies requires us to condone needless suffering in the name of maintaining belief in divine goodness.
Rather than seeking to justify suffering theologically, Humanism focuses on understanding and reducing it through:
The utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer has written extensively on how we can reduce suffering through rational choice. We do not need God's permission to reduce suffering; we have the moral obligation to do so.
A common religious objection to Humanism is: "Without God, how can suffering have meaning?" Humanists respond: suffering itself has no cosmic meaning, but we can create meaning by how we respond to suffering. The meaning lies not in divine purpose but in human resilience, compassion, and the choices we make to alleviate suffering for ourselves and others.
When a parent cares for a dying child, when a doctor works to save lives, when activists fight injustice, meaning is created through love and commitment—not through belief that suffering serves a divine plan.
Buddhism: Tanha (craving/attachment) and karma (consequences of action). Not caused by God or injustice, but by one's own mind and past actions.
Humanism: Natural causes (aging, disease, accidents) and human choices (cruelty, injustice, exploitation). Suffering results from natural processes and moral choices, not cosmic design.
Buddhism: Suffering has no external purpose; it is the natural consequence of craving and karma. But recognising suffering can motivate spiritual practice.
Humanism: Suffering has no cosmic purpose. But understanding it can motivate rational action to reduce it.
Buddhism: Through the Noble Eightfold Path—cultivating wisdom, ethical conduct, and mental discipline to end tanha and achieve liberation (Nirvana).
Humanism: Through reason, science, compassion, and democratic action—working to understand causes and reduce suffering in this life.
Buddhism: There is no "problem of evil" because there is no all-powerful God to justify. Suffering is explained through natural law (karma).
Humanism: There is no "problem of evil" in the theistic sense. Suffering is a natural fact to be understood and addressed, not a theological puzzle to be solved.
Below are statements about suffering and how to respond to it. Sort them into three categories: statements that reflect a Buddhist view, a Humanist view, or ideas that both would agree with. Click on each chip to move it to the appropriate column.
How do these non-theistic views compare to the Christian and Islamic responses you studied in earlier lessons?
Buddhist: Suffering is natural, caused by tanha (craving). No theodicy needed because there's no all-powerful God to justify.
Christian: Suffering is explained through theodicies: free will, soul-making, or divine mystery. Christians must justify God's goodness.
Humanist: Suffering is a natural fact; theodicies are unsatisfying. Focus on reducing suffering through reason and science.
Islamic: Allah's wisdom and justice are beyond human understanding. Suffering tests faith; theodicies emphasise divine purpose.
Both focus on understanding and reducing suffering through human action rather than divine intervention. Both reject the idea that suffering serves a divine purpose. Both emphasise compassion and ethical responsibility.
Buddhism: Offers a spiritual path to liberation (Nirvana); believes in rebirth and karma across lifetimes.
Humanism: Focuses on this life only; relies on science and reason rather than spiritual practice or rebirth.
We've studied Christian theodicies (free will, soul-making) and Islamic responses (divine wisdom, testing). Now you've encountered Buddhist and Humanist approaches that do not rely on an all-powerful God. Do these non-theistic approaches handle the problem of suffering better? Or do they miss something that religious traditions offer?
Write a response of 150–200 words addressing this question. You may argue that:
Support your view with specific references to the content you've learned. Consider:
Target: 150–200 words
Is it possible to combine approaches? For example, could someone accept Buddhist insights about attachment and karma while also finding meaning in Christianity's God? Or accept Humanism's rational worldview while also honouring Buddhist compassion practices?
In this unit, we've encountered multiple approaches to suffering: Christian theodicies, Islamic theodicies, Buddhist explanations, and Humanist critiques. Is the non-theistic approach (Buddhism/Humanism) more convincing than theistic ones? Or does theism offer something essential that non-theistic views cannot provide?
The Case: Buddhist and Humanist approaches avoid the logical problem of evil entirely. They do not require us to justify an all-powerful, good God permitting innocent suffering. Instead, they explain suffering through natural causes (karma, impermanence, natural processes) and focus practical energy on reducing it. This is more honest and more effective. Buddhist karma avoids the need for a cosmic judge; Humanist science and reason actually reduce suffering through medicine and justice. Moreover, these approaches do not ask the griever to accept that their child's death "served a purpose"—they acknowledge suffering as tragic and make reducing future suffering the moral priority. This is ethically superior.
The Case: While non-theistic approaches avoid the logical problem of evil, they may fail to provide what suffering people need most: hope that suffering is not meaningless, that justice will ultimately prevail, and that someone cares about them. Buddhist Nirvana is the extinction of self; this can feel cold to someone grieving the loss of a loved one. Humanist reason and science cannot replace the comfort of believing that a loving God holds their pain and promises ultimate restoration. Religious theodicies, whatever their logical flaws, offer the grieving person the hope that their suffering is seen, understood, and will be redeemed. A theistic view says: "Your suffering matters to God, and God will make it right." A non-theistic view says: "Your suffering is a natural tragedy; you must find meaning in how you respond." The first may be more comforting and more capable of sustaining moral hope.
Consider both arguments carefully. Do you find the logical clarity and practical focus of non-theistic approaches more convincing? Or do you think the hope and meaning offered by theistic traditions—despite their logical challenges—is what suffering people ultimately need? Write a reasoned conclusion that acknowledges the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
Test your knowledge of this lesson's content. Try to answer each question, then click to reveal the answer.