Benjamin asked:

Does God let people get ill to remind them that there is a God?

============

Benjamin is not the first (or last) person to wonder whether or not the presence of pain in our lives
has theological significance. In the 13th Century the Sufi Poet Rumi wrote:

"The servant complains to God of pain: in a hundred ways he moans. God says, "But after all, grief
and pain have caused you to act rightly and humbly call on Me; complain instead of the bounty that
befalls you and takes you far from My door." In reality every enemy of yours is your remedy: he is an
elixir, a gift, and one that seeks to win your heart; for you flee from him into solitude
imploring God's help.
— Mathnawi V: 91-95

Version by Camille and Kabir Helminski, Rumi: Jewels of RemembranceThreshold Books, 1996"

This kind of question about the theological significance of pain, and any attempt to answer it, qualifies
as a version of what is called a 'theodicy.' A theodicy is an account of why God, given that he is
considered all good, all powerful (omnipotent) and all knowing (omniscient), allows suffering in this
world. Basically, if God is omniscient, then he knows about all the suffering that goes on. If he is all
powerful, then he could, at least, prevent some of it. Perhaps, he is not all good? Or is suffering
supposed to benefit us somehow? Or is the devil in charge of our suffering, especially senseless evil?
If there is a devil responsible for evil and suffering, then how can God be all powerful?

The basic challenge of a theodicy is to show that the existence of suffering and evil in the world does
not conflict with the there traditional attributes of God (listed above). A theodicy attempts to show that
there is no true conflict.

When assessing this question it is important to distinguish that there are two sorts of evils or causes
of suffering: natural evil (earthquakes, diseases, natural disasters...) and moral evil (violence, theft,
murder...). Often, it seems easy to say that we human beings are responsible for moral evil and
suffering that we ourselves cause. We have free will, supposedly, and could prevent these causes of
suffering. God's three powers may not seem very challenged by moral evil. Often, though, certain
moral evils, like the holocaust or the torture and murder of a newborn baby, are examples that seem
to some people to defy any claims about our making our own choices and being solely responsible for
all moral evil When so many people die unjustly under horrendous circumstances not of their own
making, it is hard to see why an all powerful and benevolent god would allow an evil event of this
scale to happen. Likewise, when an innocent child dies senselessly, it is difficult to see how his or her
free will was involved to begin with — why would an all powerful and good God allow a child without
any opportunity to become morally responsible to suffer and die senselessly

Natural suffering is also quite difficult to reconcile with our idea of God. We might think, 'Well, if God is
so good and powerful, why does he allow as much of it as he does?' When a tidal wave wipes out an
entire community, it may seem reasonable to wonder if this isn't over-kill on God's part. Why not
simply destroy peoples' property instead of drowning everyone? Some may find the answer here to lie
in our fall from the Garden of Eden; we ourselves chose to reject the original paradise we were given.
The world since then is a difficult place. Yet, others find that in cases of natural evil, God seems to act
randomly. Natural disasters do not seem to be caused by the evil deeds of those affected by them.
The more we have learned about the world, about the causes of earthquakes, tidal waves and
diseases, the less inclined we have become to blame themselves for these occurrences. If God is a
master-planner, these evils seem like flaws in his design.

The philosopher John Hicks has one of my own personal favorite answers. He calls the world a place
of "soul making." The idea is that our souls, if we get them, are made through our experiences in this
world and our responses to our experiences. Hidden in this concept is an interesting challenge to the
idea that we all are born with souls, ready-made. Ultimately, this idea, in my view, places God at a
great distance from us, and perhaps this answer would be unacceptable to those who wish to
maintain a strong notion of a personal god who possess the three qualities he is traditionally
considered to have.

An excellent documentary film on this subject is called 'Questioning Faith.' The documentary follows
the explorations of a divinity student who wishes to understand why God allowed his dearest friend to
become ill and die. I highly recommend this film, which explores the question of why God allows
suffering in the world from diverse points of views, different religions, including atheism as well.

Maureen Eckert

Imagine a world where God has allowed just as much evil as necessary to the mix to make souls
achieve the best they can possibly achieve. However, in this imagined world, where ethics is
practised to the highest degree, no-one has ever conceived of the existence of a 'God'. In other
words, I am describing a humanist paradise, where everyone lives in blissful ignorance of the author
of their being. In these circumstances, would any theodicy be able to justify the introduction of
additionalpain and suffering, not to make us morally better — because we have already achieved the
highest that it is possible to morally achieve — but simply to "remind us that there is a God"? That is
what your question seems to be getting at. And your thought is: "Surely that would not be the action
of a benevolent being but a despot, whose only concern was to force his subjects to bend in
submission?"

Geoffrey Klempner