Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The assertion that “God permitted suffering to discipline the human being” represents a theodical attempt to reconcile the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God with the undeniable reality of suffering in the world. Theodicy, derived from the Greek ‘theos’ (God) and ‘dike’ (justice), is the attempt to justify the ways of God to humans. Suffering, broadly defined, encompasses physical pain, emotional distress, and moral evil. This question invites a philosophical examination of whether suffering serves a justifiable purpose – specifically, discipline – within a divine plan, or whether it presents an insurmountable challenge to the belief in a benevolent deity.
Understanding Suffering and Discipline
Suffering manifests in various forms: natural evil (earthquakes, diseases) and moral evil (caused by human actions). ‘Discipline’ implies a corrective process aimed at improvement, often involving hardship. The core argument posits that suffering isn’t arbitrary but a deliberate instrument employed by God to foster moral and spiritual growth in humans. This aligns with certain interpretations of religious texts and philosophical traditions.
Arguments Supporting the Proposition
The Free Will Defense
One prominent argument, articulated by Alvin Plantinga, is the Free Will Defense. This posits that God values free will above all else, and free will necessarily entails the possibility of choosing evil. Suffering arises not from God’s direct intervention, but as a consequence of human choices. Discipline, in this context, is the natural outcome of exercising free will and facing the repercussions of immoral actions.
The Soul-Making Theodicy
Irenaean theodicy, or the soul-making theodicy, suggests that humans are created imperfect and require experiences, including suffering, to develop into morally mature beings. Suffering provides opportunities for compassion, courage, and resilience – virtues that cannot be cultivated in a world devoid of hardship. God allows suffering not as punishment, but as a catalyst for spiritual evolution. John Hick is a key proponent of this view.
Punishment and Retribution (Limited Support)
Historically, some theological perspectives viewed suffering as divine punishment for sin. However, this view faces challenges when considering the suffering of innocents. While some suffering may be linked to moral failings, attributing all suffering to retribution is problematic and often contradicts observed reality.
Counterarguments and Challenges
The Problem of Gratuitous Suffering
A significant challenge is the existence of gratuitous suffering – suffering that appears to serve no discernible purpose. The suffering of children with terminal illnesses, for example, seems difficult to reconcile with the idea of a benevolent God using suffering for discipline. Skeptical theism argues that our limited cognitive abilities prevent us from understanding God’s reasons for allowing suffering.
The Evidential Problem of Evil
This argument, championed by philosophers like William Rowe, contends that the sheer amount and intensity of suffering in the world provide strong evidence against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God. The probability of such a God allowing such widespread suffering is deemed extremely low.
Logical Inconsistency
Some argue that the concept of a God who permits suffering to discipline is logically inconsistent with the attributes of omnipotence and benevolence. If God is all-powerful, why couldn’t He achieve the same disciplinary goals without inflicting pain and hardship? If He is all-good, why would He choose to do so?
Alternative Perspectives
Eastern philosophies, such as Buddhism, offer a different perspective on suffering, viewing it as an inherent part of existence (Dukkha) rather than a divine imposition. The focus shifts from justifying suffering to understanding its causes and achieving liberation from it. Process theology, developed by Alfred North Whitehead, posits a God who is not all-powerful but rather influences events through persuasion rather than coercion, thus explaining the existence of suffering as a result of the inherent freedom and creativity of the universe.
Conclusion
The proposition that God permitted suffering to discipline the human being remains a complex and contested issue. While arguments like the Free Will Defense and the Soul-Making Theodicy offer potential justifications, they are not without their limitations, particularly in addressing the problem of gratuitous suffering. Ultimately, the question transcends purely philosophical inquiry and often rests on individual faith and belief. A nuanced understanding requires acknowledging the inherent difficulties in reconciling divine attributes with the reality of suffering and exploring alternative perspectives that challenge traditional theodical frameworks.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.