disenchantedbunny.

Camus on Suffering

I would name Albert Camus as being one of the most under-rated atheists of last century. Unfortunately, The Simpsons got it wrong with the whole ‘Sartre is smartre’ thing. Also, Sartre was an inconsiderate twat who practiced personal hygiene less than even the most devout arts-school drop-out. Camus’ arguments are equally applicable to realists as they are to phenomenologists, which is quite nice considering the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo of Heidegger and similar metaphysicians. Who would have thought using common language could be so effective. Sigh.

Anyhoo… Camus makes an interesting attack on theism.

In Camus’ The Plague there is a character by the name of Father Paneloux. His first real mention in the novel sees him delivering a sermon preaching the god-given nature of the plague that has infected, exiled and alienated the town of Oran in which the novel is set. He offers the same belittling opinion of humanity as is necessary in Christian thought - necessary because we must all be lowly sinners if Christ’s sacrifice is to be meaningful. It is the rational stance to be taken by someone assuming the truth of Christianity. In a theoretical perspective it makes sense to him that god should be punishing these wicked creatures. But upon seeing first-hand the enduring torment that the plague inflicts upon a small boy he falls to his knees and is horribly shaken.

Paneloux knows that this intense suffering (followed by the child’s slow death) must be for the greater good if God is to exist. Let me go back to my earlier Scrubs post in which I laid out the general argument from evil. Those who already feel that they know the existence of god can simply deny this argument by denying P5 on faith. Considering how unsuccessful most theodicies are, it is no surprise that this is the most general position taken. Theists, Paneloux included, assume on faith that all seemingly gratuitous suffering is actually for the greater good and they just don’t understand how. God does work in mysterious ways, after all. While the argument from evil is not objective, it is objective that from what follows from the argument is either god does not exist or there is no gratuitous suffering. Thus, when Paneloux is presented with the intense suffering of the boy he is given two choices; he can abandon his faith or convince himself that these horrors are necessary. Logically following his predictable choice he has to admit that the cause of this boy’s suffering is not an unnecessary evil; that the plague bacillus, killing hundreds a day in the same manner, is there for the greater good. Paneloux does not encourage going out and deliberately infecting himself with the plague, but insists by analogy:

For the true Christian, one who has a logically consistent faith in god, it is unreasonable to not welcome suffering that has made others in the same circumstances suffer.

No one is sure if Paneloux dies of the plague or some other disease and is ironically marked as ‘a doubtful case’. Truth being, if he had have doubted his Kierkegaardian ‘leap of faith’ he may not have died.

This is about as far as the text goes in the way of argument. But I have a couple of criticisms of this argument that I’ll put in my next post. I have a feeling that I can strengthen it afterwards.