The Problem of Evil and Suffering

As Seen from the Viewpoint of Evolutionary Spiritual Emergentism

The thoughts of Bernardo Kastrup are always food for thought; he intuits how “suffering is a self-imposed engine of Nature.” However, if there is something that struck me in modern analytic philosophy, it is the almost complete absence of an evolutionary perspective. This was something that Teilhard de Chardin, Jean Gebser, and Rudolf Steiner pondered, but for some reason that goes beyond my comprehension, nowadays only the hardcore materialists argue in terms of Darwinian evolution. Obviously, it is inevitable that the metaphysicians (idealists, spiritualists, theologians, etc.) get stuck within too small an intellectual horizon and then wonder about inconsistencies, mysteries, and paradoxes. I’m not claiming to have a definitive answer either, but it might be interesting to explore these deeper existential and philosophical questions from the perspective of evolutionary and spiritual emergentism. Let me unpack this.

The problem of evil presents one of the most enduring challenges in philosophy and theology. It questions how suffering and moral wrongdoing can coexist with the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly benevolent God. If such a deity exists, why do natural disasters, human cruelty, and innocent suffering exist? Moreover, what kind of God creates souls only to send them into a world filled with suffering? If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why does it allow a reality in which survival of the fittest prevails and organisms prey on one another?

This portrayal of God seems to indicate either a limitation in power or a troubling indifference. The resulting image is not that of a benevolent divinity but, rather, that of a distant architect who either permits or actively engineers suffering as part of a larger plan, leaving humanity to face the fallout.

This dilemma has prompted various theological and philosophical responses. Some abandon traditional theism, while others seek to reinterpret God's nature, suggesting limitations to the divine or a more dynamic relationship with creation. The problem continues to be a central point of debate, prompting thinkers throughout history to explore the complexities of faith, morality, and the nature of existence.

For example, the free will theodicy¹ posits that evil exists because God has given humans genuine free will—the capacity to choose between good and evil. This freedom is essential for meaningful relationships, moral responsibility, and authentic virtue. Without the option to make wrong choices, true freedom and love would be unattainable, as coerced goodness lacks moral value. While free will does lead to moral evils, such as cruelty and injustice, it is seen as a necessary condition for a greater good: a world where individuals can freely choose love, righteousness, and personal growth. This argument is that God allows evil not out of a desire for it but because its removal would necessitate taking away humanity's freedom, thus rendering a morally significant world impossible.

However, if suffering is the price of free will, one might wonder why an omnipotent God could not have designed beings with the freedom to choose but also an innate resistance to evil. Other questions are legitimate. What free choice or wrongdoing could an innocent victim of aggression possibly be responsible for? How can we explain the suffering of a newborn child afflicted with a painful disease or dying from hunger?

Personally, the free will argument doesn't convince me. However, it's also true that there can be many varied answers. Everyone must find their own.

Nonetheless, I believe that, taking the standpoint of an evolutionary framework of the spiritual emergentism of a universal consciousness, we could extend our vision to a perspective that provides us with a clearer understanding of the subject and might bring us closer to some truths.

The moral question

If we are God's children, why does He (She? It?) send us into a world filled with tears and suffering? God is believed to exist in a transcendent heaven, enjoying perfect spiritual bliss and delight, yet He places us in a realm of pain. This seems inconsistent with the nature of an all-loving and compassionate Father or Mother. It resembles a demon more than a divinity.

Kastrup intuits that, from the perspective of a theology centered on universal consciousness, the enigma disappears at the outset. There is no separation between the Source and its ‘sparks’ or souls. We are emanations of the One, without a second, and our soul is not distinct from the One-Soul. The perceived duality and separation between us and God are illusions, devoid of deeper reality. There is no separate God who punishes His children; our suffering is His suffering, our joys are His joys, and our afflictions are His afflictions. We exist in God, and God exists in us. This means that God experiences every pain, misery, and agony through us. No one and nothing has cast us into a realm of struggles and imperfections. We are manifestations of the same divinity that has willingly individualized and subjected itself to this experience in a world filled with ignorance and pain in matter. Once we relinquish the idea of an external and separate God who judges us detached from our everyday reality, the moral dilemma disappears. This isn't a new vision; it is particularly inherent in non-dual Vedanta teachings, which, however, also lack an evolutionary perspective. It isn’t alien to the biblical tradition either, from which we learn that “God created mankind in His own image” (Genesis 1:27) and “In our suffering, God suffers with us” (Isaiah 63:9).

[Later edit from a discussion in the comment section…]

So, what about babies suffering and dying, children victim of sexual abuse, or mistreated animals? This doesn’t appear to represent a teaching moment for them. To put it in the words of my friend and psychologist Don Salmon:

“Take the perspective that the baby, the abused child, the mistreated animal, as being all formations of a transcendent and universal consciousness, part of which remains transcendent and looks on its own forms, much as Shakespeare looks on Romeo, Julius Caesar and other of his characters. They have no existence outside of Shakespeare's consciousness, so it is not the baby or the animal that are or not learning lessons; it is Shakespeare himself.

Perhaps a book is not a clear enough analogy. Imagine Shakespeare with the capacity to project his own consciousness as a 3D holographic world, and he is the sole character appearing as a vast multiplicity of characters (much as you or I might be in a conscious dream, in which we know we're dreaming).

Do you see how the perspective might be radically different?

And remember, in an evolutionary perspective - in which, say, I (Don) am the Shakespeare creating the 3D holographic world - I have chosen to dive in, forget myself, for the sake of the adventure of rediscovering myself. I have gone in fully recognizing that in what will appear to be aeons for the various characters I will be appearing as, there will be what to us is known as ‘suffering.’ I have consciously chosen this, for my infinite Self.

Does that change your perspective at all?

As far as whether "you" or "I" are one with the Mind of God, I hope you realize that every mystic teaching the world over, including Christian, Sufi and Jewish mysticism as well as Tentai, Shinto, Neo Confucian, Vedantic, Tantric, Jain, Sikh, Taoist and other mystic traditions (Greek, Egyptian, Pacific indigenous, etc.) teach about ‘Avidya,’ Ignorance, by which we go through one life or countless lifetimes perceiving our mind-body individuality as utterly separate from the mind of God.

That's the whole point of an evolutionary perspective. The Infinite I has chosen to exist in material, plant, animal, human form in ignorance to grow to realize I have never been separate from the Mind of God.”

This doesn’t mean we shouldn't strive to minimize suffering. It is not a license for excusing or normalizing evil, and it may offer little comfort to those who are abused or dying from cancer or Alzheimer’s. However, it can help us find some understanding in an otherwise senseless, purposeless, and pitiless universe—which senselessness doesn't make sense either.

The evolutionary function of pain

One might wonder why pain and suffering exist at all. Why would a perfect and complete divinity choose to subject itself (through us!) to a world filled with hardships? First, let’s examine this from a sociological perspective.

Sooner or later, we learn that life's challenges shape our character and skills. The proverb “every cloud has a silver lining” reflects this wisdom. Pain and suffering serve as profound catalysts for learning and growth throughout our lives. During these difficult experiences, we are compelled to confront our limitations, tap into inner reserves of strength we never knew existed, and develop resilience in the face of adversity. By navigating hardship, we gain invaluable insights. These trials can reshape our perspectives, clarify our values, and ultimately mold us into more insightful and resilient individuals, thus allowing us to emerge from the darkness with newfound wisdom and strength.

Then, we can realize this from a spiritual perspective. The deeper motivation for the existence of pain lies in the spirit's need to awaken from the inertia and forgetfulness of the material world. This spirit must experience shock and disgust, sometimes even horror and torture, to break free from its lethargy. Without pain and struggle, our inner spirit—our evolutionary soul—would lack the incentive to grow and would remain trapped in the rigid form of a rock forever. At best, we might not have gone much beyond the amoeba. Pain serves an essential evolutionary purpose: the growth of the soul during its journey of transmigration.

This is, in essence, the notion of karma, which is central to several Eastern religions and philosophies. It has nothing to do with judgment or a punishing God. It posits a principle of cause and effect that governs our present and future lives. It suggests that every action², whether physical, mental, emotional, or verbal, creates a corresponding energy or imprint that will eventually return to the individual. Positive actions, characterized by compassion, kindness, and integrity, are believed to generate positive consequences, while negative actions rooted in selfishness, harm, or ill-will lead to negative outcomes. This isn't necessarily a system of immediate reward or punishment; rather, it is a natural law that emphasizes personal responsibility for one's choices and their reverberations throughout the cycle of life, death, and rebirth. It is also a necessary condition for the evolution of the soul. In other words, karma is a teacher that helps us to learn our lessons.

While the notion of reincarnation is absent in Abrahamitic religions, the notion of karma isn’t foreign. Instead, it assumes different names and nuances and is confined to the frame of one single life. For example, here also exists the idea that sins—that is, all transgression against divine law—committed with willful intentions always have consequences. In other words, karma is a teacher that helps us learn our lessons.

Why does suffering exist in the first place?

If God, Brahman, Allah, Mind at Large, universal consciousness, just ‘Nature,’ ³or whatever name we use for It, is omniscient, all-powerful, infinite, and perfect, why did He create a finite world filled with imperfection, weaknesses, ignorance, and suffering? Why not simply create a heaven where we could live in bliss without affliction and death? Why would a divine Being want to have this painful experience of throwing itself into the opposite of itself and creating duality and separation, leading to suffering and evil?

We might see things in a different light if we conceive of evolution as something that was preceded by an ‘involution’ of the universal Spirit, which immersed itself in its opposite. Pain, ignorance, and unconsciousness are part of the polarity of opposites within universal consciousness. If God embodies bliss, knowledge, and existence, then He must have also experienced pain and ignorance, plunging itself into a state of apparent non-existence.

One could argue that the original deity, representing supreme knowledge, bliss, power, and pure existence, is truly all-powerful precisely because it impelled itself to experience the opposite of its true nature. A divinity that confined itself solely to its essence, denying the experience of its opposite, would be a limited entity rather than infinite Consciousness. If universal consciousness is infinite, it must encompass infinite experiences, including those we perceive as ‘bad’ and painful. Otherwise, it would not be truly infinite and complete.

Moreover, the individuated souls that emanate from God forget their divine origin. This identification with a lower state of consciousness is what we may refer to as ‘evil.’ The concept aligns with religious mythologies that depict demons as fallen angels, reflecting a human intuition of a deeper truth. Ultimately, all evil appearing in the form of demons, or of criminals and sinners, is also a ‘mask of God’ with which God tricks itself into oblivion to surge in the evolutionary process.

What is ‘evil’?

Is evil truly evil? Our human concepts of ‘good’ and ‘bad,’ ‘moral’ and ‘immoral,’ ‘ethical’ and ‘unethical,’ and ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are shaped by our limited consciousness and a human understanding of reality. Maybe, from the perspective of a divine Gnosis, what we label as ‘evil’ and ‘bad’ might be perceived very differently. We must recognize that ignorance might cloud our view; the mind cannot fully comprehend the workings of a higher consciousness, and we cannot determine what is genuinely good or bad for ourselves or for the collective development of humanity. A heavenly Mother or Father certainly knows better what is best for us.

We might question what lessons can be learned from the deaths caused by earthquakes, hurricanes, or volcanic eruptions. Are these not merely natural phenomena that impact us randomly? However, from a cosmic perspective that transcends the notion of a vengeful God, even such disasters might hold meaning within a framework of spiritual emergentism. These events could represent a divine process through which the universal consciousness shapes us—that is, itself—and fosters the growth of its emanated souls. Perhaps even at the core of pain lies the delight of being and existence itself.

Be that as it may, adopting an cosmology, in which universal consciousness arises through an evolutionary spiritual emergentism, might allow us to move beyond constricting religious beliefs that once served a purpose but that have become overly simplistic with regard to understanding our earthly condition. Embracing a multidimensional view of existence that transcends dogmas and scriptures while taking spiritual insights seriously could enable us to look beyond and see further.

The subscription to Letters for a Post-Material Future is free. However, if you find value in my project and wish to support it, you can make a small financial contribution by buying me one or more coffees!

You can also support my work by recommending me on Substack.
Thank you in advance!

1. Theodicy is the branch of theology that defends God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil.

2. The word ‘karma’ has its origin in the root ‘kri,’ meaning ‘action’ or ‘work.’

3. The second limiting view of Kastrup is that he doesn’t allow Nature to be nothing more than a blind mechanistic instinct, like the drunken man. There is no intelligence or wisdom; it is just an unreflective and dumb deity. I have written about this here.