…At the end of the day, I don’t know how we can say that God exists, given the senseless pain and suffering in this world.1
If I understand Ehrman’s question correctly, it is this: If Scripture is inspired by God, why doesn’t it provide a clear-cut answer to the problem of pain and suffering in the world?
This would be the natural question of a ‘Happy a Anostic’. Because it is almost ‘impossible to explain if there was a good and loving God who was actively involved in this world,’ why giving Scripture allowed ‘evil so rampant among us’? And why do Scriptures ‘not provide us with an infallible guide for faith and practice’?2
To this question my response as a ‘Happy Lay man’ would be, ‘Well, most scriptures give guidance for faith and practice. But they cannot provide all the solutions to our problems, particularly those that we have created ourselves. To say it another way, God never created the problem for us. She may allow trials in the life of Her bhaktas to discipline them (like parents), but She won’t be delighted in our suffering. And those who exclusively search for every kind of solution to all human problems from God or Scriptures naturally would be disappointed. But there are solutions provided outside the scriptures, and those who believe in God would see them as God-given solutions from Her to guide us in dealing with practical issues.
For example, Indian philosophy divides pain and suffering caused by three things: Adhyatmika (by oneself), Adhibhautika (by others), and Adhidaivika (beyond human control, like natural calamities). Here ‘daivika’ in Adhidaivika does not mean ‘God’ but, ‘as Daiva, Bhaagya, Niyati, Kaala, Vidhi, Vidhaana, Vidhilipi, Dista, Bhaagadheya, Bhavitavya (taa), Krtaarita, Acintya, Adrsta, Yadrcchaa …’ 3
In all three cases, we are responsible for our problems, not God.
1. Adhyatmika: Suffering Created by Oneself
Many philosophies offer reasons for self-inflicted suffering—karma, divine play (lila), temptation, or even the devil. But no explanation satisfies everyone, especially those who approach the issue with pure rationalism. Ultimately, we must accept that self-inflicted suffering is caused by ourselves, even if Fate or divine play appears beyond our control.
Fate can change through personal effort, and divine play through grace. However, the principle remains: “You reap what you sow.” We have the right to choose but not the right to control the consequences of our choices. Therefore, our responsibility is to work out our own solutions—either trusting in ourselves or seeking help that is readily available.
Sometimes, we may deny any problem within ourselves, considering suffering as merely an illusion (maya), but even this solution starts from the self. To resolve suffering, one must begin by accepting that something is wrong and then work toward a solution. Blaming God or analyzing suffering theologically only delays the process. Imagine your house is on fire: You wouldn’t sit inside asking how the fire started. Your first priority would be to escape. Similarly, the cause of suffering can be analyzed later; for now, action is required.
“Come to the edge,” He said.
“It’s dangerous,” I answered.
“Come to the edge,” He said.
“I might fall,” I answered.
“Come to the edge. Trust me,” He said.
So I did. And He pushed me! And I flew!4
2. Adhibhautika: Suffering Caused by Others
The most difficult part of life is managing relationships. From family to friends and colleagues, conflicts arise the moment another person enters our lives. As social beings, we cannot live in isolation, and with relationships comes the potential for conflict.
We naturally center our lives around ourselves. The Muktiveda (New Testament) teaches, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Loving oneself isn’t wrong; it’s the basis for loving others. However, issues arise when “my” (my home, my family, my community) takes over, creating tension and conflict.
Human relationships often fail because we don’t recognize that others, like ourselves, center their lives around their own perspectives. We expect them to align with us, but they expect the same from us. The ego quickly escalates these tensions into conflicts.
One solution is empathy—stepping into the other person’s shoes. In Tamil Nadu, a particular guru teaches a method for resolving interpersonal issues: “Don’t command, don’t demand, and don’t expect.” While ideal, this isn’t always practical, especially within families where expectations are part of daily life. But when handled with care, these expectations can enhance rather than damage relationships.
Managing relationships within a family, where we live with “known devils,” prepares us for interactions outside, with “unknown angels.” It’s unhelpful to be an angel in the street but a devil at home—a common complaint within families.
To improve relationships, follow two simple guidelines: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Muktiveda) or “Do not do to others what you would not want done to you” (Mahabharata). Even if all efforts fail, truth and reconciliation are necessary for resolving conflicts.
In Indian culture, the word “adjustment” has become a mantra for resolving interpersonal problems. If someone refuses to adjust, the entire family suffers. Divorce, for example, is often seen as an escape from marital problems, but it only introduces new complications. After divorce, even more adjustment is required, whether one chooses to remain single or remarry. This is why divorce is often not a solution but a new set of challenges.
Losing a relationship is one of the greatest losses in life. Relationships take time and effort to build and should not be discarded over a single issue. Though we might separate from a person, the problem often follows us. Sometimes, even when we are right and the other person is wrong, sacrifices are necessary for peace.
As Jim Elliot wisely said: “He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”5
Human relationships are foundational to our existence. The very essence of being a person is shaped through relationships, not in isolation. We cannot fully understand concepts like friendship, love, or family without engaging with others. Whether in the East or West, relationships define who we are and who we become.
We are shaped by and shape the society around us. Recognizing each other as persons, not merely as individuals, allows us to navigate life’s challenges and joys, particularly within the context of family and community. We are born into relationships, and even after death, we are remembered in the context of those relationships. Thus, we must celebrate and nurture these bonds, whether life is peaceful or stormy.
Suffering in relationships is often human-made, and blaming God for it is fruitless. Even scriptures like the Muktiveda (New Testament) are interpreted differently based on cultural perspectives. While Hinduism teaches that mukti (liberation) is personal, the Muktiveda suggests it is also communal, achieved through collective action.
Moreover, the Muktiveda rejects the notion of a private God. God is accessible to all, but only if we allow it. If we exclude divine guidance from our lives, we must accept responsibility for the results. Ethics, whether shaped by religion or not, begins at home. If we wouldn’t hurt those we live with, we’re unlikely to hurt others outside. This foundational ethical principle helps address the challenges of suffering more than any particular doctrine.
Adidaivika: Suffering beyond human control
The human response to adidaivika—suffering caused by forces beyond our control—often leads people into one of three broad categories: atheists, agnostics, or bhaktas.
– Atheists reject the notion of any needs or realities beyond the body. They live by the simple creed: “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” For them, suffering is just a part of the material existence and has no deeper significance.
Agnostics, on the other hand, remain undecided, uncertain, and unable to commit to any one explanation. They are caught in a state of indecision, unsure whether there’s a greater power or a solution beyond the physical world. Bart Ehrman, for instance, has not fully rejected Christianity but prefers to identify as a “happy agnostic.”
Bhaktas (devotees) place their trust in their faith, accepting that while their faith may not provide all the answers to suffering, it gives them the strength to endure. The assurance from their belief system, such as the notion that “everything works for good for those who love God for the common good of all,”7 helps them face suffering with hope. This idea of divine providence, even if misattributed or manufactured, brings comfort. In Tamil Nadu, for example, many people display posters that proclaim, “Whatever happens, happens only for our good,” and attribute these words to the Bhagavad Gita—even though the Gita says no such thing. But to them, it doesn’t matter. As long as the statement brings peace, it is considered a “word of God.”
The bhakta lives with the hope that all suffering will eventually lead to a happy ending—either in this life or through future births. When faced with doubts or suffering, there is often a belief that someone will come to guide them, reinforcing their trust in a higher power. This belief system contrasts with other traditions, where tragedy is viewed with finality, as seen in Greek epics. In Indian epics, there is rarely a true tragedy, as there is always an underlying belief in eventual resolution and redemption.
I was reminded of this during my time in Ranikhet, staying with the Mangoli family. My host, with deep sincerity, once asked me, “Will I attain mukti (liberation)?” I could see the genuine longing in his eyes for an answer. I responded with a story: A saint, after years of spiritual practice, approached his deity with the same question, “Am I saved?” The deity replied, “What would you do if you knew you were saved? Then do it now.” This, to me, holds the key to resolving doubts and fears: Trust. Whether or not we have all the answers, we must act with faith and do what we believe is right in the present moment.
This meditation doesn’t directly address the suffering caused by adhidaivika. In fact, the more I ponder it, the clearer it becomes that both science (outward exploration) and philosophy (inward reflection) only raise further questions without ever providing final answers. We will continue to search, and with each answer comes new questions. In the end, my thoughts may seem like babbling, as I circle around the same truth without fully grasping it.
After all this reflection, I realize that the only true answer to the suffering caused by forces beyond human control is: I DON’T KNOW. But beyond this, there are two potential paths. One is to trust yourself, as the atheist does, and attempt to find your own solutions. The other is to trust God, as the bhakta does, believing that divine grace will take care of everything. The agnostic, however, stands on uncertain ground, unable to make that leap in either direction, which may only add a fourth category of suffering—agnosticism itself.
Conclusion:
Suffering and pain are vast subjects, forming the foundation of both practical approaches and philosophy. However, what’s important to understand is that while we cannot avoid pain in life, we don’t need to suffer unnecessarily. By keeping pain within our mental control, we can prevent it from overwhelming us. The three Indian approaches provide valuable insights for managing pain and suffering, helping us maintain balance in life by drawing from each perspective.
1 Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, San Francisco, Harper, 2002, p. 248
2 ‘This in itself did not lead me to become a non-Christian. But it did lead me away from the evangelical fold of Christianity, into a more “mainstream” form of belief that saw the Bible as conveying, in some sense, God’s word, but not as a book that contained the very words from God. It was only later, and for other reasons, that I eventually decided that I could no longer be a Christian. People have frequently asked me what I believe now, after all these years of intense study and hard thinking. About seven or eight years ago, I became an agnostic. When I tell people this, they often tell me they think that’s sad—so perhaps I should add that I don’t find it sad. I feel like I have a much better grasp on the “truth” than I did before, and that I understand our world and our relationship to it better than ever. And as I have said on numerous occasions, I have a fantastic life—a brilliant and beautiful wife, a great pair of kids, a terrific teaching position with bright students, lots of time (though never enough!) for leisure and writing, and on and on. And so I consider myself a rather “happy agnostic.”’—ibid. p. 247
3 Sukumari Bhattachari, Fate and Fortune in the Indian Scriptures, New Delhi, Foundation Books, 2014, p. 22.
4 Robert JH. Schuller, Turning Hurts into Halos, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, (1979), 1990, p. 180
5 Elisabeth Elliot, Shadow of the Almighty: The Life and Testament of Jim Elliot, Harper & Brothers 1958 edition, quoting from his journal October 28, 1949..
Leave a Reply