Today suffering is used as an argument against the existence of God and religious belief. Not only is it seen as an argument against a benign God but it is even used to deny that God; if he exists , cannot be omnipotent. Medievalists took a very different view and for them the real dilemma was how could God permit man to suffer as a result of evil? It was the converse of modern scepticism.
To traditional philosophers like St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, they recognised that there was a spectrum of malum or bad thugs in the world from the unpleasant through to the downright evil. Evils were suffered by man and animals alike and could be divided into either natural evils or those caused by sin and which were confined to man. They could understand that as a result of the free will which God has given man, the possibility of evil arises, but natural evils causing suffering were more difficult to explain.
It arose, they thought, because the world was a finite creation with inbuilt laws. They could see that these laws could result in tragedies and an example could be an earthquake resulting in a tsunami. In one way this phenomena was the working out of natural laws within a finite and imperfect creation but the existence of these laws allowed for an understanding to develop. Ultimately, this was a good thing as it allowed men to anticipate and minimise the bad effects of natural disasters.
The real question for the victim of the tsunami was really a deeper one which was ultimately "why me"? A mother would ask "why did my child die"? This was a different question to why the tsunami happened. Some with religious belief might ask why did God allowed it and why was there no miraculous intervention to prevent the tragedy? The philosophers saw it rather as a chance event. There was no particular reason for it and as moderns would say, it was a question of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. God does not suspend the laws of creation which would lead to an incomprehensible world. It was important to realise this to prevent faulty reasoning such as attributing it to conduct, or the notion of punishment.
He drew attention to Christ's own teaching that the victims of the falling tower in the Gospel were not suffering because of any fault of their own or their ancestors. It was also clear that suffering was not part of God's plan and Jesus himself cured sufferers. The suffering that comes from illness does not come from God . Nevertheless Jesus himself suffered and through his sufferings came the ultimate good of salvation.
Christian theology uniquely believes that God can bring good from suffering, the ultimate example being the passion of Christ. There are many other examples even in the aftermath of the tsunami of good coming from the suffering as the result of the charity of others who came to help. On the other hand, the suffering caused by sin hurts not only others but the sinner. It was truly a "no win situation".
Dr Tony Cole
Master