God, suffering and artificial intelligence ...

Graham (and ChatGPT) write ... 

Source: forbes.com.

Alan Turing by Elliot Fry (1951). Copyright: National Portrait Gallery

AI (Artificial Intelligence) has been in the news quite a bit recently, mostly it seems because of the perceived threat it poses to human existence. It can certainly be argued that AI, like any powerful technology, has the potential to be both beneficial and dangerous, depending on how it is developed and used. However, setting these issues aside, I thought it would be interesting to ‘interact’ with one of the many AI applications that are currently available to get a feel for how convincing it is at emulating human responses. British mathematician and computer scientist Alan Turing proposed a test in the 1950s to assess a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour indistinguishable from that of a human. The ‘Turing Test’ has also been the focus of relatively recent cinematic offerings such as ‘The Imitation Game’ (2014) and Ex Machina (2015). It was first introduced (‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’, Mind, Vol. 49, pp. 433-460, 1950) as a way of considering the question ‘Can machines think?’.

---

The setup for the classic Turing Test is pretty straight-forward, involving three participants, a human interrogator, a human respondent and a machine respondent. All interactions occur via text ensuring that physical appearance or voice do not influence the inquisitor. The objective is for the interrogator to determine which respondent is the human and which is the machine. The machine passes the test if the interrogator cannot reliably distinguish it from the human, based on its responses. It’s fair to say that, while the Turing Test is ‘iconic’, it is nevertheless a subjective judgement that is made by the interrogator. Another issue is that the test doesn’t really assess the machine’s ability to understand or reason – Turing’s original goal – but rather evaluates how well a machine mimics human communication. Bearing in mind these limitations, I initiated a conversation with one of the online AI applications – ChatGPT – which can be accessed without cost at https://chatgpt.com. 

The set up of a classic Turing Test. Source: Infineon Technologies AG.

Obviously, this post doesn’t represent a classic Turing Test as there is no human respondent but it’s interesting to see how well the AI apps’ output emulates human-like responses. As mentioned above, this judgement is entirely subjective - some of you may be impressed, others not so much. I opened the ‘conversation’ with the following question …

Graham said: If God is loving and omnipotent, why is there so much suffering in the world?
 
ChatGPT said:
 
The problem of suffering is one of the most profound and difficult questions in philosophy, theology, and human experience. It has been the subject of debate for centuries and is often framed as ‘the problem of evil’. Here’s an overview of how different perspectives—religious, philosophical, and humanistic — address this question:
 
1. The Free Will Defence

         Key Idea: Human suffering is often the result of human free will.

• Explanation: A loving God granted humans free will, which allows for genuine love, moral choices, and personal growth. However, free will also allows for the possibility of evil actions and moral failings.
• Example: War, crime, and oppression arise from human choices rather than God's will.
• Challenge: This defence doesn’t fully explain suffering caused by natural disasters or diseases, which are not the result of human choice.

2. Soul-Making Theodicy

         Key Idea: Suffering is necessary for moral and spiritual growth.

• Explanation: According to this view, a world with challenges and suffering provides opportunities for humans to develop virtues like courage, compassion, and resilience.
• Analogy: Just as physical exercise strengthens the body, facing difficulties can strengthen the soul.
• Challenge: Some suffering, especially extreme or seemingly senseless suffering (e.g., the suffering of children), seems disproportionate and difficult to justify.

3. The Mystery of God (Appeal to Divine Wisdom)

         Key Idea: Humans cannot fully understand God's purposes.

• Explanation: From this perspective, God’s knowledge and wisdom are infinitely greater than ours, and what appears as suffering or evil may serve a purpose beyond our comprehension.
• Biblical Reference: In the Book of Job, God responds to Job’s suffering not with a direct explanation but by emphasizing the vastness of divine wisdom.
• Challenge: While this view emphasizes humility, it may feel unsatisfying to those seeking a concrete explanation.

4. Natural Law Theodicy

         Key Idea: Suffering arises from living in a world governed by natural laws.

• Explanation: For the world to function consistently and predictably, it must operate under laws of nature. These laws can lead to suffering (e.g., earthquakes, disease), but they also make life possible and meaningful.
• Analogy: Gravity can cause a fatal fall, but it also makes life on Earth possible.
• Challenge: Critics argue that an all-powerful God could have created a world with fewer harmful consequences.

5. Evil as a Consequence of a Fallen World

         Key Idea: Suffering is the result of sin and separation from God.

• Explanation: In many religious traditions, suffering is seen as a consequence of humanity's fall from grace (e.g., Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden). The world is thus in a broken state, and suffering is a natural consequence of this separation from divine perfection.
• Hope: Many traditions hold that suffering will ultimately be redeemed, and justice will be restored in the afterlife or a future divine intervention.
• Challenge: This view may be difficult for those who struggle to reconcile inherited guilt with personal suffering.

6. Atheist or Secular Perspective

         Key Idea: Suffering is a natural part of existence in an indifferent universe.

• Explanation: From an atheistic or secular perspective, suffering is not the result of divine will but rather a consequence of natural processes, chance, and human actions.
• Response: Since there is no divine plan, humans must take responsibility for alleviating suffering through empathy, science, and social progress.
• Challenge: This view can provide motivation for action but may feel existentially bleak to some.

7. The Compassionate God: Suffering as Shared Experience

         Key Idea: God participates in human suffering.

• Explanation: In Christian theology, the concept of the Incarnation—where God becomes human in Jesus Christ—suggests that God understands and shares in human suffering.
• Message: God may not always remove suffering, but He is present with humanity in their pain, offering comfort and hope.
• Challenge: This provides emotional solace but does not eliminate the problem of why suffering exists in the first place.

Final Reflection:
No single answer fully resolves the problem of suffering, and it remains a deeply personal and existential question. Different perspectives offer various ways to find meaning, hope, and action in the face of suffering. Many people draw on a combination of philosophical reasoning, religious faith, and human compassion to navigate this complex reality.

How do you personally approach or reconcile this issue?

Graham said: I believe that human free will is responsible for most of the suffering in the world ...
 
ChatGPT said:
​
That’s a thoughtful perspective. Believing that free will is the root of most suffering highlights the importance of human responsibility and moral choices. From this viewpoint, much of the world’s pain could be alleviated by better decisions—individually and collectively.
How do you think free will interacts with situations beyond human control, like natural disasters or diseases? Do you see those as part of a broader context, or are they separate from moral responsibility?

Source: timescale.com

Graham said: Earthquakes are actually necessary to support human life on planet Earth - recycling carbon etc. Some diseases such as cancer go hand in hand with the process of evolution. Evolution allows for the diversity of life. I have no answer for many other diseases, which seem to produce helpless suffering.
 
ChatGPT said:
​
You’ve highlighted a nuanced understanding of how natural processes like earthquakes and evolution play essential roles in sustaining life and fostering biodiversity, even when they result in suffering. It’s a perspective that acknowledges the complexity of life on Earth—where the very mechanisms that support life can also cause pain.
The challenge of diseases that seem to cause helpless suffering is indeed difficult. Some might argue that they reflect the randomness of existence, while others see them as part of a mystery yet to be understood. Do you think science and human intervention could eventually reduce or eliminate such suffering, or do you view it as an unavoidable part of life?

Graham said: Perhaps 'pointless suffering' might have been a better phase, rather than 'helpless suffering' ...
 
ChatGPT said:

That distinction makes sense. "Pointless suffering" emphasizes the difficulty of finding meaning or purpose in certain experiences, which can be even more troubling than feeling helpless. It raises profound questions about why such suffering exists if it doesn't seem to contribute to growth, survival, or a larger purpose.
Do you think it's possible for meaning to emerge from what initially appears as pointless suffering, or does it remain inherently without purpose?

Graham said: I guess if you believe in a God, pointless suffering may help in building resilience and character?
 
ChatGPT said:

Yes, many religious and philosophical perspectives suggest that even pointless suffering can contribute to building resilience, character, or spiritual depth. While it may not have an obvious purpose, it can still shape a person’s inner life in meaningful ways. Here are a few ways this idea is framed:

Suffering through natural disasters (source: sciencenordic.com) versus suffering through man-made events (Gaza 2024, source: Reuters).

1. Resilience and Strength

• Suffering, even when it seems purposeless, can force individuals to develop inner strength and resilience.
• Analogy: Just as muscles grow stronger through strain, the human spirit can become more resilient through adversity.
• Challenge: Not all suffering leads to growth; for some, it can be overwhelming and destructive.

2. Compassion and Empathy

• Experiencing suffering often deepens one’s ability to empathize with others in pain.
• Some theists argue that suffering fosters a more compassionate and interconnected human community, where people support one another.
• Example: Many people who have endured personal tragedy become advocates for helping others in similar situations.

3. Faith and Dependence on God

• In religious contexts, suffering can lead to a greater dependence on God, fostering humility and a deeper spiritual connection.
• Christian Perspective: In Christianity, suffering is often seen as a way to share in the suffering of Christ, drawing believers closer to God.
• Islamic Perspective: In Islam, enduring suffering with patience (sabr) is considered a virtue and a way to earn spiritual rewards.

4. The Mystery of Growth

• Some believe that suffering’s role in building resilience and character may not always be immediately apparent, and its full significance might only be understood in hindsight or in a spiritual afterlife.
• Analogy: A child might not understand why a painful vaccine is necessary, but it serves a greater purpose for their well-being.​

​

Philosophical Tension
Even with these ideas, the tension remains: Why would a loving, all-powerful God allow suffering that seems excessive, random, or pointless? For many, this question is unresolved and leads to a balance between faith, doubt, and human action to reduce suffering where possible.
Does this perspective resonate with you, or do you find certain aspects of it challenging?
 
The ‘conversation’ was terminated at this point, but it could have gone on for quite a while. ChatGPT seemed to want to have the last word … 

Source: Corporate Finance Institute.

If you got this far in the ‘conversation’, then well done! So what do you think? I was quite impressed with the AI’s responses, and I believe that the interaction helped me to understand the question of God and human suffering, and its implications, a little more clearly. Obviously, there is no simple answer, and is definitely a matter of opinion – which is why the conversation could have gone on for some time, eventually ending up going round in big circles! Also, if there had been a human respondent, I don’t think I could have reliably identified who was who from the syntax (sentences and phrases), so I guess the AI passed the Turing Test in this respect. However, I have a feeling that I might have identified the AI from the semantics (concerned with meaning) simply because it did so well in the extent and logical structure of its responses. I think a human respondent would have been more hesitant, and somewhat less logical in framing their ideas. So, at the end of the day you could say that ChatGPT failed the Turing Test because it did too well in addressing the issue. I have to say that I didn’t see that one coming.
 
This brief experience of an AI application has demonstrated their power and utility and how they can be used in many applications. I hope to resist the temptation of allowing ChatGPT to write future blogs … as I have partially done with this one!
 
May I take this opportunity to wish our readers a good 2025.
 
Also please take the opportunity to leave a like, a greeting or a comment on this and future posts, so that we know you are there.
 
Graham Swinerd
 
Southampton, UK
January 2025