Of all the puzzles of existence that challenge our religious ideas, none cause more anguish and more crises of faith than suffering, death and evil. From the dawn of human sensibility these have resisted what Leibnitz called theodicy—vindication of the justice of God. Even today, many thinkers and mystics confronted by the suffering of the innocent can only fall silent, like Job, before the inscrutable mystery of God’s ways.While this problem has always been with us, its urgency only grows. It is of vital concern to every thinking person.
Data-url='data-title='Sinful Magazine - Issue 14, 2018'. Empire is a British film magazine published monthly by Bauer Consumer Media of Hamburg based Bauer Media Group. From the first issue in July 1989, the magazine was edited by Barry McIlheney and published by Emap. Bauer purchased Emap Consumer Media in early 2008.
But in particular, it is this existential angst over the source of evil and death that drives the endless quarrel between creationists and evolutionists. To Christian fundamentalists, as well as to atheists, Darwinism destroys the biblical explanation of evil and death and precludes the possibility of purpose for the universe.
It is fear of this yawning abyss of meaninglessness that makes creationists—sincerely and understandably—so resolute in their defense of biblical literalism. As a result, all attempts to resolve the debate on the basis of science alone will remain futile, as the two sides continue to talk past each other without facing the existential concerns that are really at stake. The Rebirth of Theistic EvolutionFar from being resolved, this battle is only growing more complicated. Even now, the usual antagonists of both fundamentalists and evolutionists are having to make way for two new teams of combatants, who are vying for control of the middle ground and revivifying the position traditionally labeled “theistic evolution.” These are the proponents of so-called Intelligent Design (I.D.) theory (such as William Dembski, Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe) and the pioneers of the new field of evolutionary theology (including John Haught, Jerry Korsmeyer and Denis Edwards).
American Catholics are prominent in both camps, and it remains to be seen which group will have more influence in shaping the position taken by the Catholic Church in the future.I.D. I was quite intrigued by the article providing an explanation for original sin and what sense it makes in the modern world of investigative empirical science overshadowed by the influence of Logical Positivism. I was even more intrigued by the failure to cite the counterexplanation for this explanation provided by Gerald Vann in his book THE HEART OF MAN, where Vann provides some 20 pages to an appendix dealing with a similar approach taken by a friend of his who was a professor of chemistry; Vann identifies perhaps a dozen of more fallacies involved in the professor's discussion of the Fall of Man and subsequently offers rebuttals to each and every one. Verbum sit sat sapienti.
Professor Daryl Domning’s boldness in tackling the very confusing matter of evil in the world deserves respect (“Evolution, Evil and Original Sin,” 11/12/01). But some of his conclusions leap out of bounds. They go beyond the limits of his working method, a scientific one. Underlying the article appears to be a presumption that a blanket of science is laid over all of reality, and universal conclusions are drawn out from under it. But that presumption is mistaken.Science, by its nature, observes and manipulates physical data. It protects its conclusions with the charge, “Where’s the evidence?” That sounds prudent and wise.
But it is an abridged question. The question really being asked is, “Where’s the physical evidence?” To be honest, science needs to acknowledge the limits it places on itself by requiring measurable, physical evidence for every aspect of reality.Evil, sin and subsequent suffering are experiences of the spirit. They are grasped intellectually as moral—i.e., nonphysical entities. Spirit is an area of reality from which science as a method excludes itself by presumptively implying its nonexistence. Nevertheless, thinkers like Professor Domning attempt to judge the intangible and immeasurable realm of spirit by the laws observed in the physical world.
That is like trying to understand the relationship between human persons by observing the interaction between monkeys or cats or rats: you can do it if you wish, but you sure miss a lot! I’m writing to thank you for the article “Evolution, Evil and Original Sin,” by Daryl P. Domning (11/12/01).
As a physician for many years, and a deacon for almost six months, I have struggled to explain to my patients, and now to my congregation, a rationale for evil, sin, disease and the process of aging that can be of some help to them. Most of the time I have been forced to admit that I have no idea why this or that particular illness or tragedy happened. Now I have an explanation that fits with current scientific knowledge and still includes a loving, caring God.The author doesn’t say much about suffering, but what he does say seems to be not clearly differentiated from the symptom of pain. My understanding of suffering is different from Professor Domning’s. Most animals can feel pain (certainly primates and higher vertebrates can) but suffering is reserved for us humans.
It has to do with our unique ability to imagine a future. When that future appears to have only negative aspects, like endless pain, loss of physical abilities and eventual death, suffering then is occurring. To the degree that we choose to imagine a future with hope, we can ameliorate our suffering.I think it is a hopeful sign that some of the time, at least, we humans oppose our genetic drivenness and choose to do the selfless thing, just because it is right. How could America approve and print such a misguided article as “Evolution, Evil and Original Sin,” by Daryl P. Domning (11/12/01)?
I was dumbfounded that such an article would ever see the light of day in America, as was Robert F. Patterson and another critic of the article, Andrew Szebenyi, S.J. (12/10/01).Possibly, in response, America could provide another article on the subject, avoiding the distortions presented by Mr. As Father Szebenyi noted in his letter, the pieces of his puzzle did not fit reality in light of our faith. I was quite intrigued by the article providing an explanation for original sin and what sense it makes in the modern world of investigative empirical science overshadowed by the influence of Logical Positivism. I was even more intrigued by the failure to cite the counterexplanation for this explanation provided by Gerald Vann in his book THE HEART OF MAN, where Vann provides some 20 pages to an appendix dealing with a similar approach taken by a friend of his who was a professor of chemistry; Vann identifies perhaps a dozen of more fallacies involved in the professor's discussion of the Fall of Man and subsequently offers rebuttals to each and every one. Verbum sit sat sapienti.
The reality of our situation can be summed up as one of mortality-the reality of death is the factor in our universe that allows sin to be a componenet of the human condition. Were there no pain, or suffering, there woujld be no death, and no sin. The myth of the Fall could have described something that occurred somewhere else at some other time in some other universe, or on some other planet. Earth, our place of exile, is where salvation history is worked out in the mortal sphere. Paul describes the whole of creation 'groaning until now, awaiting the redemption of our bodies. The problem of Geneis is in reality a non-problem unless one insists on imagining a literal Eden on this planet somewhere in created time. If another scenario is imagined, and this planet, and this life is our place of exile from Paradise, then the creation story has both the aspect of truth and the power of myth, and is nonetheless still truthful for all that, once we have understood the meaning of the events described therein.Beyond that, one may use George Fox, the Quaker as an example of Biblical criticism, believe it or not, when he thought that we were given what we needed to know AT THE TIME.
Whch idea sounds perfectly natural, given that we still break up our week into seven days and still have our day of rest, as described in Genesis, science and present realities notwithstanding.