Cause of Human Suffering
"Every Cause has its Effect; every Effect has its Cause;everything happens according to Law; Chance is but a name for Law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the Law."(The Kybalion.)
In this chapter we will examine the main responses to the cause of human suffering, presented by traditional Christian religions, which base their doctrines on the literal interpretation of the Bible and the belief in the existence of a single life. Then we will analyze the answer presented by Reincarnation, so that we can conclude which one presents more logical consistency.
Answer 1: Human suffering exists because of the "Original Sin"
This theory has already been the subject of our "Logical analysis 1: Ilogicity of original sin", where we demonstrate that it does not hold itself under the rigor of logic, because it presents contradictions in its central concept, when affirming that "God is fair" and, at the same time, commits an injustice, causing people to pay for the mistakes of others. (Principle of non-contradiction)
Answer 2: Human suffering exists "To the glory of God"
Many of those who base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of the Bible use the passage in John 9-10: 21 to justify the fact that a person is born blind or with any other type of physical disability, saying that this occurs so that God can show His “Glory” and His “Power”.
“…As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. “ (John 9 – 10:21)
However, in analyzing this biblical passage carefully, we have to consider two options: Was Jesus making a generic statement, that is, it applies to all people born blind, or a specific citation, which applied to the case of that particular blind man ? Let's take a look at each of the possibilities:
1. General Citation: Jesus would be referring to all the blind from birth.
2. Specific citation: Jesus would be referring only to that particular blind man.
Analyzing the two possible interpretations, we easily observe that the general citation is totally devoid of coherence:
-
How could God, to demonstrate his "perfection", create suffering and "imperfection" by causing people to be born with disabilities and suffer so that, this way, Everybody could see his "Glory" and "Power"? It would be the same as a father harshly punishing a child to demonstrate to everyone how great he is. (inconsistent)
-
Would we think, when faced with the blind and disabled people on the streets, or children suffering in a hospital with cancer: "Wow, how God is" glorious "! (?) ". It obviously does not make any sense.
The second interpretation has total coherence, for it leads us to deduce that this blind man would be there fulfilling a mission, so that, through his healing, the power of God, through Jesus, could be revealed to the world, as it happened, through the accounts of the disciples who were recorded in the Bible and could reach the present day.
Another unequivocal demonstration confirms this interpretation: The disciples asked Jesus, “who sinned, this man or his parents?" They did not ask, "Why are people born blind?" And Jesus' answer was also in the singular: “…so that the works of God might be displayed in him. "
We conclude then that the biblical passage of the "blind man's cure" is not a "generalized" explanation for the cause of human suffering, but rather contextualized at a specific moment in Jesus' mission. And even if we interpreted this biblical passage in a generalized way, we would not solve the question of injustice that such action would represent, that is, a person suffering without deserving, which would represent an injustice, making God unfair and, consequently, imperfect.
Answer 3: Human suffering exists because of natural causes
This response attributes human suffering only to natural causes. For example, a child born with genetic problems inherited from the parents, or a problem arising in childbirth, etc. But this answer, while it may provide an explanation for the material aspect of the issue, approaching the physical body, does not explain the spiritual issue. Now, if God created the spirit at the moment of birth, how could one justify it to begin life with diseases or anomalies, without having done anything to deserve such sufferings, while others are born absolutely perfect?
In this case, life would be just like a game of "luck” or “bad luck", there being no explanation for the cause of human suffering. In this way, this answer also does not offer a consistent explanation.
Answer 4: The causes of human suffering are "God's Mysteries"
Many who defend the belief in the existence of a single life, failing to provide a coherent explanation to justify the cause of human suffering, say that these are "God’s Mysteries" and that such mysteries are "unfathomable."
With all due respect to all sorts of beliefs, I think that, throughout the history of mankind, if we had always had the posture of thinking that all things for which we did not yet had an explanation were "unfathomable mysteries", and we were satisfied with this answer, we would still be, as before, believing that the Earth was flat and the sun would revolve around it, and condemning to death all those who sought a rational response.
How many things that in the past were considered "great mysteries" were completely unraveled by science? Therefore, if God has given us the gift of intelligence, we must use it to understand the universe around us.
Conclusion of responses offered by Traditional Christian religions
We can conclude, from the above answers, that traditional religions, based on the belief that there is only one life, are not able to offer logical explanations that present a fair, rational and consistent criterion to justify the cause of human suffering.
The "Original Sin Theory" is completely inconsistent because, according to it, God would be violating the most elementary concept of Justice, imposing people undeserved suffering caused by a sin they did not commit. To attribute that human suffering could exist simply for the "Glory" of God, or to define such a question as "God’s mysteries" also does not offer any coherent explanation.
However, the fact that traditional religions are unable to provide a consistent explanation for the origin of human suffering does not mean that this explanation is non-existent! As we saw earlier in our studies, there is no effect without a cause. Therefore, if God is infinitely righteous and perfect, we can come to the conclusion that He created a "fair and perfect" universal system, where there is a rational cause which explain the origin of so much suffering on the face of the Earth.
Logical argument analysis
Premise 1: God is infinitely fair.
Premise 2: Every effect has a cause that justifies it.
Conclusion: There is a just cause to explain the existence of human suffering.
In order for us to refute a logical argument, we must demonstrate that at least one of the premises is false or that there is no logical inference between the premises that leads to the conclusion presented. Therefore, to refute the above argument, we would need to do at least one of the three options below:
1. Demonstrate that 1st premise is false: That is, to affirm that God is not infinitely fair, which goes against all the Doctrines that believe in the existence of a Perfect Creator.
2. Demonstrate that 2nd premise is false: That is, to demonstrate that there can be an effect without a cause, which goes against the Universal Laws, where we observe that every effect has a cause that originated it
3. Demonstrate that the premises do not lead to the conclusion: What is not possible because both premises have a clear logical inference between them, leading unequivocally to the conclusion: If God is infinitely fair (Premise 1), and every effect has a cause (Premise 2), we can unequivocally deduce that human suffering has a cause and that this cause is fair! Otherwise, God would be unfair and therefore imperfect.
Without at least one of the above options, we can never say that we "refuted the argument". Logic, therefore, shows us that if we consider the existence of an infinitely Perfect Creator, He necessarily has a fair criterion to justify and explain the causes of all human suffering.
However, as we have seen previously, we will not be able to find this fair criterion in the doctrines that are based on the belief in the existence of a unique life
Reincarnation: The logical explanation for the cause of suffering
Reincarnation presents the only logically consistent explanation for the cause of human suffering, as it is able to identify it in the actions we have done in previous lives. Therefore, from the point of view of Reincarnation, there is no injustice, because each one will be given "according to his works". From the logical point of view, this explanation solves all the contradictions that doctrines based on the belief in the existence of a single life are not able to solve.
Actually, if we think that we ourselves are responsible for our actions, and that all of us, without exception, will always have to pay off our debts, we will never be able to see any trace of injustice in the Divine Laws.
If we had only one life, we would not be able to explain so much suffering and inequality between people. How many are born perfect while others are born blind, paralyzed or sick. How many are born into well-structured families, both financially and morally, while others are born orphans or wholly devoid of any material or moral structure.
How could an infinitely loving father create his children "in sin" and make them suffer unjustly, when in fact they would be innocent, because they themselves would have done nothing to deserve such suffering? The non-reincarnationist doctrines fail to provide any logical explanation to justify this situation.
The Spiritist Doctrine presents us with an extremely coherent view through the "Law of cause and effect", a Divine Law as inexorable as any Law of Physics, where each person, that is, each spirit that reincarnates on Earth, becomes responsible for his own acts, and receives the consequences (positive or negative ) from them.
There are also situations in which a person reincarnates on mission and submits to sufferings that would not have been justified by his previous actions but, in these cases, such sufferings are not being imposed to them. As we have seen, justice is "giving every one according to his merit" and God could never impose undeserved suffering upon anyone. In these cases a suffering is not being "given" or "applied", but the person decided, using its own free will, to pass through it, in order to carry out his mission.
In addition to being incomparably more logical, Reincarnation is also supported by thousands of material and scientific evidence, as is demonstrated in Part III of this work (Material and Scientific Evidence), such as PLT (Past Life Therapy), a technique which emerged in the scientific environment, where people can access memories of other lives through hypnosis. We can find thousands of documented cases about it.
We can also find thousands of children's cases recalling spontaneously from previous lives, mentioning striking details about their previous life and often even presenting birthmarks that substantiate their account, as we can see from the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson, who investigated and documented over 3,000 cases over 38 years of research.
Finally, by adding logical arguments to material and scientific evidence, we find that Reincarnation actually offers the most consistent answers to the cause of human suffering. Without the doctrine of successive lives, we are at the mercy of an illogical and inconsistent theory, unable to present coherent answers, coupled with the vision of an avenging and absolutely unfair anthropomorphic God.
Reincarnation provides us with a much broader and more logical understanding of the universe, and a much greater view of God as a Universal Cosmic Intelligence, who created infinitely wise and righteous Laws.
