What's On
Menu
There are lots of different ways in which suffering might provoke difficult questions for people who believe in God. Some philosophers have argued that the worst suffering simply makes belief in God incoherent, or implausible; others have suggested that in the light of such suffering we may need to revise our understanding of God. Some Christian thinkers have defended some kind of ‘theodicy’ – an account of why it is that a good God could permit creatures to suffer in the ways they do. But these views have often provoked very strong reactions, as people find the very idea that the worst suffering could be part of some kind of divine plan to be intolerable. Most people have, at one time or another, been struck by these kinds of questions.
This course examines a few central moments in these discussions, not so as to put forward final answers, but so as to some resources to think carefully about the questions. We will address a range of issues, from the arguments that claim that the worst suffering undermines belief in God altogether, through the way that suffering is dealt with in the Bible, to recent debates in theology about the nature of God and the meaning of the cross. The course does not aim to resolve all the questions that suffering raises for people of faith; it does aim to help us to think more deeply, honestly and clearly about them.
Alongside texts by philosophers and theologians, we will also make use of literature, film and music that has explored these issues.
There are different kinds of suffering, and different ways in which such suffering might cause problems for people who believe in God. In this session we try to think as carefully as we can about these, so as to be clear about what questions we need to ask.
Questions for reflection
The Book of Job is famous for the way in which Job questions the justice of God in the face of his suffering, but it is less clear what kind of answer the book presents. This session also examines a few different approaches to this fascinating book, and asks how Job’s questions connect to our own.
UPDATE: for those who are interested, you may wish to follow up a few of the points that were made in today’s session with links below:
- Those interested in Ernst Bloch’s (controversial!) atheistic interpretation of the Book of Job, which claims that the main lesson is that ‘man can be better, and behave better, than his God’ can read it here, esp. pp. 92-108.
- If you are interested in some of the difficulties with translating key passages in the Book of Job, you could read an article by Troy Martin, a well respected biblical scholar, which explores some of these, and puts forward a new interpretation of 42: 1-7. See below.
Reading
The Book of Job - as much as you can manage! (If you don’t have time to read the whole book, then try chs 1-7; 19; 22-24; 38-end.)
Additional reading
Walter Bruggeman, Theology of the Old Testament (extract)
Questions for reflection
1. What do you take be the message of the The Book of Job as a whole to be? Do find that any particular speech, or moment, is central to this message?
2. What do you make of God’s words to Eliphaz at the end of the book: “you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.”? In what way do you think that Job has “spoken of [God] what is right”? How does this relate to the God’s rebuke of Job – that he “darkens counsel by words without knowledge”?
Many serious thinkers have found that the existence of God seems incompatible with the worst suffering, and “the problem of evil” is perhaps the most serious objection to belief in God. We examine a number of thinkers who have articulated thoughts along these lines, and ask what kind of challenge they present for thinking Christians. Does “the problem of evil” undermine belief in God? Or might it be that this problem is somehow essential to belief in God? Does the idea that God created humans with free will shed any light on these issues – and if so, how?
Reading
Richard Swinburne, Is There a God? (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996), 95–113.
Additional reading
- Brian Davies, Thinking about God (London, Geoffrey Chapman, 1985).
- J. L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism (Clarendon Press)
1. Some atheist philosophers (like J. L. Mackie) think that the challenge for theists is of how to reconcile their belief that an all-powerful, perfectly good God exists with their acknowledgement that real evil exists. Does there seem to be real conflict between these beliefs to you? If so, how have you tried to resolve it thus far?
2. Richard Swinburne claims that the opportunity to have ‘deep responsibility’ for each other is a great good, and that the possibility of moral evil is ‘the necessary condition’ for this great good. Do you find this to be a helpful observation? Does it go any way to refuting the argument ‘from evil’, against the existence of God?
3. Swinburne goes on to explain that God has the right to allow us to suffer, because of the unique way in which God is related to each of us. What do you make of this suggestion?
Additional resources
The videos below might help you to understand the basic shape of ‘the argument from evil’ (especially if the chapter itself feels like a struggle): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4z9Y2u30Qs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L67dlpMgDa4
There is an accessible introduction to free will defences in general in the video below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0tLRO8_qRI
A well-known critique of John Hick’s ‘soul-making theodicy’ (similar, in many respects, to Swinburne’s) by Stanley Kane can be found here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40021034.pdf
A summary of the influential work of Marilyn McCord Adams can be found here (see pp. 343-346). Adams puts forward an influential analogy to show the problem with free will defences; the ‘stove top analogy’ (see p. 345).
It is sometimes claimed that God makes use of suffering, and that this helps us to understand its place within the universe. We will explore the work of Eleonore Stump, who has put forward an argument along these lines, in one of the most influential recent books on suffering. Is there something morally objectionable about saying that suffering might be spiritually “useful”; or is this position inevitable for anyone who believes in a God who “works all things together for the good of those who love him?”
Reading
Eleonore Stump, Wandering in Darkness(Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 386-402.
Stump explains some of her ideas in the interview here: https://www.publicchristianity.org/the-problem-of-suffering/
Questions for reflection
1. Aquinas& Stump’s views depend on us being able to evaluate earthly suffering in view of an everlasting future, and in relation to an infinite good (i.e. union with God). How do you respond to this way of seeing things?
2. Do you think that some suffering really does, in practice, enable (some) people to become open to God, or to act as a form of ‘healing’. If so, why? If not, why not? What do you make of this idea? If it is NOT true of some kinds of suffering – why is this?
3. What do you imagine that you would make of this set of ideas if you had no experience of Christianity, or Christian ideas?
At the centre of Christianity is the image of the cross, and the thought that God is in Christ, who dies. For many 20th and 21st century theologians, the idea that God suffers alongside humans is an important theological response to the worst suffering in the world: perhaps, as Bonhoeffer said, “only a suffering God can help”. We examine a famous example of this theological trend in the work of Jurgen Moltmann, and ask how we can make sense of the idea. What would it mean to say that God suffers with human beings?
We will also explore the work of Marilyn McCord Adams, whose discussion of ‘Horrendous Evils’ has proved provocative and influential in philosophy of religion. Adams suggests that most attempts to ‘defend’ God against the argument from evil fail to recognise the ‘size gap’ between God and humans. But she also suggests that the goodness of intimacy with God is so great that we may be able to hope that horrors can be overwhelmed, even if we cannot see why they would permitted.
Note: if you wish to skip the section on Moltmann, then you could begin the audio at 23 mins in.
Seminar reading
- Marilyn McCord Adams, ‘Horrendous evils and the goodness of God’ available here;
- or, you could watch a video summary of her work, available here. There is also an intellectual biography of Adams available, here.
Additional reading
- Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God (London, SCM Press: 1981), pp. 21-54; 47-52; 57-60; and/or
- Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (London, SCM Press: 1974), pp. 226-235.
Questions for reflection
1. What do you make of Adams’ claim that because of the metaphysical ‘size-gap’, emphasising human free will will not reduce divine responsibility for creation.
2. Do you think that it makes sense to say that we could have hope for the ‘how’ of God’s overcoming of horrendous suffering, without understanding the ‘why’ of God’s permission of such suffering?
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
.jpg)
Stuart is the Theology Lead at LJC. He graduated with a degree in Literature and Theology from the University of Hull in 2000. From 2003-9 he studied Philosophical Theology part-time at the University of Nottingham, whilst continuing to work in the third sector with vulnerably-housed or homeless people, and young asylum seekers (as well as pulling pints in a pub). He was Lecturer at York St John University for almost a decade, before moving to London Jesuit Centre in 2021. He now lives in South East London, and spends as much time as he can in the woods.
