Something New on the Blog

I actually thought God’s Problem was a marvelous book. It’s been awhile since I read it, but as I recall Bart homed in on Ecclesiastes to posit that there is, after all is said and done, no divine reason for suffering. This could easily lead one to abandon faith, depending on what human conception of God is being abandoned in the process. Aside from the very real fact that we all suffer and that suffering hurts us a lot, however, that which is called ‘the problem of suffering’ need not be considered a problem per se in the larger scheme of things. That is, to the extent that our philosophical and theological presuppositions of suffering can be understood as merely limiting any deeper understanding of the phenomenon. In this regard, it may be helpful to consider some evolutionary perspectives in the context of a dynamic, changing earth. OK, I confess that I’m a geochronologist, but bear with me. The fossil record tells us that for the past 3.8 billion years all species of organisms that have ever lived on earth – including us, as very late arrivals — have consistently adapted to pre-existing environments. So it is *not* that the earth was pre-adapted for humans’ express benefit, any more than pools of boiling water in Yellowstone Park were especially created in anticipation of the unique algae that now occupy this niche environment. From these perspectives, human (and other animal) suffering can be understood as just a necessary component of living in a dynamic, changing world – to which we either adapt and survive, or not. After all, pathogens were around long before there were humans to suffer and die from them, or to adapt to them as a species by evolution through natural selection. So if a theological perspective claims, instead, that God originally zapped us humans into existence out of thin air (well, ok… from dust) as initially-perfect, feel-no-pain beings in an otherwise static, unchanging world… well, then speaking from purely an evolutionary perspective I would submit that the problem of suffering lies not with God per se but rather with a misconception of God as some kind of theistic personal protector. Instead, the existentialist theologian Paul Tillich has postulated that “the God of the god of theism” is actually the Ultimate, whereas the personal God of theism can be considered as a readily grasped symbol that merely *points* to this Ultimate. For many scientists (Einstein, for example), this Ultimate God created the best possible universe (why do any less?), which however necessitated its creation via the elegant evolutionary processes that have operated over a span of 13.7 billion years. Thus, from purely an evolutionary perspective, suffering as ‘God’s Problem’ can be transposed into a relatively small component of what I would call ‘God’s Process.’ Whereupon human (and animal) suffering is simply understood as a natural but necessary price to pay for the privilege of living our brief lives as sentient beings on an ever-renewing earth. Biblically speaking, I think Ecclesiastes is closest to also being scientifically correct in its perspective on suffering, if I remember Bart’s points accurately in ‘God’s Problem.’ Bart, please feel free to correct me if I’ve gone astray here.