Follow Me on Twitter!

  • is completely in the throes of the aphorism that a qualitative study's endpoint is hard to clamp down. 3 hrs ago
  • "needs to buy car tires; for the highlander rims" - sung to the melody of "aqualung" by jethro tull. 5 hrs ago
  • found that only about 2% of our students submitted possible plagiarized papers fall '08. wonder how that compares with national averages. 7 hrs ago
  • thinks after reading several books on secularization theory that the neo-atheist arguments are even less intelligible than before. 22 hrs ago
  • is enjoying playoff football. wishing he was in miami today - not for the game, for the sunshine. 1 day ago
  • More updates...

Recent Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Stuff You Might Find Here

Living Social Bookshelf

The Ooze Select Blogger

Scribe Member

Archives

Stuff Elsewhere

Info/Log In

Stats

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats

Evolution and Human Suffering

Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:44 pm Posted in Science, Theology

Frank Ayala makes an interesting proposition that runs counter-intuitive to either the anti-evolution or neo-atheist positions.

“Drawing on five years of study in preparation for ordination as a Dominican priest, Ayala uses evolution to help answer a central paradox of Christianity—namely, how can a loving, all-knowing God allow evil and suffering? Nature is poorly designed—with oddities such as blind spots built into the human eye and an excess of teeth jammed into our jaws. Parasites are sadists. Predators are cruel. Natural selection can explain the ruthlessness of nature, Ayala argues, and remove the “evil”—requiring an intentional act of free will—from the living world. “Darwin solved the problem,” Ayala concludes. He refers to science-savvy Christian theologians who present a God that is continuously engaged in the creative process through undirected natural selection.”

The rest of the piece on Ayala and his work is worth your read here.

Viewing 4 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    But does this take away sovereignty from God, and what does it mean to call God 'Creator' if, in fact, he was not himself in charge of making creation? Or do we just conveniently say that the parts of creation that we like were God-made, and those we don't are evolution-made? That's a mite too convenient. It seems like this 'solution' comes at the cost of another, equally big, problem. But if one desires to take science seriously (e.g., one cannot say God first created a world without any suffering - that is, that evolution happened), and if one wishes to have God actually be creator, this is something that must be addressed in one way or another.
    • ^
    • v
    This does not have to be a god of the gaps kind of thing. Rather, think of a compatibilist argument in which determinism and freedom co-exist.
    • ^
    • v
    I think you are right, David, but it changes the game way too much for some.

    The whole point of the "problem of evil" is the conception of God as Omnipotent, Omniscient, and All Good. That conception of God is, presumably, inconsistent with observed existence. If we start from a theology that does not include this conception of God, the problem can, indeed, be avoided. But for some, that would mean giving up.
    • ^
    • v
    Personally, I think the whole question of God's role in suffering is a waste of energy. All of the treatments that I have seen seem to be based on a common underlying paradigm -- that we are mere humans, separate from God, and flawed from the get go. In this kind of worldview, questions like this, as well as questions about Original Sin, etc., make a lot of sense.

    But if instead you take a phenomenological approach, a more Eastern approach, then all of these concerns are bogus.

    For example, how would these questions look if you assume that we are spiritual beings having a human experience, the primary challenge of which is dealing with our minds and all of the games our egos play on us. From this perspective, suffering (as opposed to pain) comes from our own minds and the interpretations we make about our experiences. So suffering is self-inflicted and original sin is nothing more that giving credence to the belief that we are separate from the Creator.

    Completely changes the game, as far as I am concerned.

    David
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus