Pain and Suffering

The problem of theodicy - reconciling pain and suffering with belief in the Christian God - always seems to come up when discussing evolution & God with atheists (and some YECs as well for that matter). The problem people have is that evolution requires death, suffering through parasites, carnivores, micro-organisms etc., limited resources leading to starvation and also death through old age or organ failure. How could a loving God effectively set up his creation for such things?

There are no easy answers for the problem of suffering, however I think it is much easier to address the problem when agreeing with an evolutionary picture than any other. This is because evolution requires such things in order to operate. Without suffering we couldn't have life as we know it. A consequence of the good things in life is the bad - ying and the yang. This is in comparison to a more traditional Christian picture that finds itself having to justify every occasion of suffering using excuses from God punishing individuals through to the actions of demons. Furthermore traditional pictures have to try and explain problems such as death before "the fall" and the question as to whether only humans can suffer. For me the need for suffering because of evolution is a much simpler picture.

But this still may not answer the original objection - but why did God create suffering? Well firstly because he had to - one cannot imagine a biological world without suffering, but secondly, and almost as a side-effect, because it is through suffering that we actually find God. If everything in life happened without trouble we would get complacent and think we could cope on our own (ever wondered why belief in God is stronger in poorer nations?). Suffering forces us to respond. Without God that response is often pessimistic or negative, but with God we look to the eternal. A Christian attitude accepts the bad, is realistic about the situation, but looks for the good - a hope for the future. The Christian has a reason to always be positive because the Christian knows that life is more than just what we experience on earth. This is not to say that God callously creates suffering to try and prove himself, but rather that suffering is part of the biological innateness of humanity. God doesn't make suffering happen but he does help us to overcome it, and through seeking the positive we find personal healing and salvation.

Miracles considering evolution

In episode three of "The Genius of Charles Darwin" Richard Dawkins put to Rowan Williams a question along the lines of: if you say God works through natural processes such as evolution what place is there for him to actually interact with humanity?

There are a number of ways of looking at this deep theological mystery. The way I find most useful is to think of God as being interactive rather than interventionist. Thus as God interacts with his creation in all events, perceiving him is about how we perceive God in the events themselves. For example where an atheist might see luck a Christian will view the same event as divine. A Christian will view a new child as a gift from God, an atheist as inevitable physics/biology. Initially this explanation sounds a bit thin, however personally the more I have tried to actually live it out - seeing God in the everyday - the more profound I have found it.

However there is still occasions (as Dawkins rightly pointed out to Rowan Williams) where God does intervene e.g. virgin birth, resurrection of Christ etc. I understand these occasions to be based on two things: firstly scientific truth - if science didn't say that virgin births, resurrections after three days etc. didn't happen then we wouldn't know they were miracles - thus in a way we need science to show us what is/isn't a miracle. Secondly I think there is also a deep theological reason for apparent interventions (or at least suspensions of normal life). The miracles of Jesus etc. occurred at a specific time, for a very specific reason. Through Jesus earth and heaven met in a way unlike any other time. If there is ever to be an occasion when nature behaves strangely, this was it.

The Genius of Charles Darwin Episode 3...

I think the most notable part of this episode is how reasonable and nuanced Rowan William sounds. Richard may not like the idea of having cake AND eating it, however there is an alternative to both religious and atheist fundamentalism.

The genius of Charles Darwin - Episode 2

Episode 2 hasn't been posted online by channel four, nor could I find it in an easily linkable form as for part one (below), however you can watch it on youtube so long as you don't mind it being split into five parts and hosted by a user called "CrucieFiction":

He starts off rather poorly with his usual anti-religious tourettes problem including an interview with a completely clueless African bishop, however thankfully he soon moves on to what he is good at, explaining evolutionary biology for the lay person. As usual I cannot fault him when he has his zoologists/educators hat on. I just wish he didn't accompany it with so much other ignorant rhetoric!

Evangelical Triumphalism

I am right on the border of being an Evangelical. For many years I was an Evangelical however there are certain things within the tradition that I really do not like. Currently the thing that is annoying me most is the triumphalist ring to supposedly "academic" or at least scholarly Evangelical literature.

To me, a good academic treatment of a subject tries it's best to stand back a bit from it's subject. In other words when I read a paper or book I expect the author to at least try not to sound too prejudiced. This rule, however, is not adhered to within much Evangelical literature. Time and again I read supposedly scholarly accounts that implicitly assume there is a "right" interpretation and thus assess the history or philosophy in comparison to this assumed "correct" account. The result is a book that sounds extremely arrogant and somewhat blinkered, and more importantly misses the value of looking to see how philosophy or history might actually question certain aspects of the Evangelical creed. Two examples that I have read recently are Earle Cairn's "Christianity through the ages" which is particularly bad and John Stotts "The Cross of Christ".

My suspicion is that this observation is consistent with a more insidious, authoritarian side of the Evangelical movement. There seems to be (a sometimes openly stated) assumption that if someone is in a position of authority - either as a leader or author - then God has placed them there and thus they have God-given authority. Although there is room for a level of criticism, negative comments are quickly labeled as "judgmental" or "un-gracious", thus exerting psychological pressure on the questioner to stop their criticism. The result is a status-quo represented as a series of beliefs to which no questions can be asked, and any evidence against the wisdom of the belief being ignored or swept under the carpet. Such a situation cannot be good in the pursuit of God.

The Genius of Charles Darwin - Richard Dawkins episode 1

Watched the above episode of Richard Dawkins new documentary last night - I was not impressed.

Although I agree entirely with Dawkins that Darwin was a genius, and that evolution is one of the most ground breaking and powerful explanatory theories within science, I simply cannot abide his anti-religion rhetoric. Is he not aware of any of the scholarship regarding the interplay between science and faith? Has he not paid any attention to his numerous discussions with people like Alistair McGrath?

Yet again Dawkins produces a polemical program that does nothing to further the debate. I imagine all the internet atheists will be jumping up and down waving their flags whilst the YECS re-double their anti-science efforts. Meanwhile those of us who are actually interested in the subject can do nothing but shake our heads and gear ourselves up for the inevitable pub conversation about how evolution has "disproved" religion... sigh.

3rd Way

I have recently been quite interested by the discussion emanating from Denis Alexander's excellent article entitled "Viva la evolution" on the third way website. 

After a group of YECS decided to reply on mass CiS mobilised and responded on mass. It seems that a lot of different groups are gearing themselves up for next years 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth.

Along with the usual polemics surrounding this subject I was quite interested to note quite how loosely the term"Darwinism" was being used by everyone. Some (mostly YECS) equated it with materialism or naturalism, whilst those from a more scientific background equated it with evolution in general. Everyone seemed to overlook the technical usage of the word which equates to Darwin's specific beliefs which, along with evolution through decent, modification and natural selection, also contained ideas such as panspermia. Of course the phrase neo-Darwinism was then coined to refer to Mendelian genetics merged with natural selection, however even that is somewhat out of date, especially as recent results from the fields of epigenetics and RNAi seem to indicate some really quite interesting alternatives to simple gene based evolution.

This looseness of terminology unfortunately leads to confusion, and thus plays into the YECS hands. All of a sudden the normal (and exciting) development of evolutionary science is seen as undermining "Darwinism" (which of course it does) and thus somehow backing up the creationist arguments. I think it is time to put to bed the idea that Darwinism equates to evolution. Evolutionary theory is strong and developing. Darwin made a seminal contribution with his idea of natural selection, but science has now moved on rapidly. It is time people began to view Darwinism in the same way they view Newtonianism.