If you don’t know who John Marks is, I hope you will check out his blog, The Purple State of John. John and his old college roommate, Craig Detwiler, made a wonderful film called A Purple State of Mind. In that film, John, who is an avowed atheist, and Craig, who is an evangelical Christian (although a fairly progressive one), have a series of open, honest--and occasionally painful--conversations about faith and its implications for public life and individual action. They call the film "an 80-minute effort to bridge the cultural gap, to push past politics, and wade into the middle ground where most people live."
The "purple," of course, refers to a blending of the so-called "red state"/"blue state" divide promulgated so heavily by television news. I highly recommend the film to you.
When Dear Friend and I went to the premiere of A Purple State of Mind at Davidson College (where Marks and Detwiler met), we both felt more affinity for John, with his doubts and questions, than we did with Craig. Since that time, I have read John’s blog regularly (he does some really interesting posts on film and other cultural issues) and I comment semi-regularly on his faith-related posts. The following is my response to his post entitled The Perfect Christian Daughter Murders Her Perfect Christian Family: A Case Study In The Problem Of Evil. I got started writing, and couldn’t stop, so rather than clog up his comment box, I decided to respond here.
*************************************************
John--I ask in advance for your forgiveness if this sounds snarky. If we were discussing it over coffee or a beer, I assure you, I would sound more questioning than snide. (I also apologize for the length, but it’s hard to discuss this without laying out some important context.)
I have no easy answers for theodicy--and no thinking person of faith does. Stories like the one you highlight are quite effective for your purpose. You dare Christians to answer the unanswerable and show us to be ignorant fools when we try. It’s an easy “victory” for you---like shooting fish in a barrel.
But here is my question for you: What do YOU have to say about Erin Caffey and the evil she has done? Can you address the problem of evil without God and find any satisfactory answers?
I am a person of faith (in part) because, without "God," (however you define that), there can be no redemption for the evil or suffering in the world. All that pain just *is*. It will never be rectified. There will never be justice for the oppressed. There will never be any recompense for suffering. Life, to borrow from Thomas Hobbes, is "nasty, brutish, and short"--and we should probably all just kill ourselves and save ourselves the trouble. What's the point, anyway?
Maybe you can live in that nihilistic world, but I can't. Maybe you are made of stronger stuff than I--and most of the rest of humanity. I would venture to say that most people who claim a faith do so because we need to believe that the pain and suffering we DO experience (regardless of its cause) will ultimately be redeemed. That even if what we suffer is pointless, something good will come from it and our pain will not have been completely in vain.
If that makes me foolish or gullible in your eyes, I readily plead “Guilty as charged.”
I will not be glib about theodicy--but I will also state, as strongly as I am able, that I do not believe God causes or allows suffering for our "good." IMO, that God would be a monster and not worthy of worship.
I believe that God is with us *in* our suffering and works with us and others to bring good out of bad situations. I have experienced that presence myself in my own times of trouble. (Of course, it could just be some autonomic, evolution-inspired response in my brain—but that’s why we call it “faith.” ;-) I have also sensed the presence of the “holy” (for lack of a better term) in the faces and actions of those who have loved me.
I should probably note at this point that I am a process theologian. (I claim the title of "theologian" by virtue of my baptism, not because I went to seminary.) I don't believe that God is "omnipotent" (at least, in the sense most people mean it). I agree with Charles Hartshorne's view about that--he wrote a book titled Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. My theology differs from most of those whom you profiled in your book Reasons to Believe--but I still count myself as a “Nicene Creed” Christian, and there are probably a lot more like me in Christian circles than you might think.
I am also a universalist, so I do not believe that God is going to send all but the chosen few to Hell. I don’t even believe in heaven or hell, in the sense that so many people mean them (as physical places where “good” or “bad” people go). But I do believe that, somehow, what is broken will be repaired and love will reign.
At the end of the day, my belief in God gives me "a very present help in times of trouble." That belief may be a delusion on my part, but it gives my life meaning and purpose.
My "brand" of Christianity is not the one against which you contend, of course. I will never try to impose my faith on you or anyone else--and I do my fair share of fighting my co-religionists in the political/legal sphere.
But I get tired of otherwise intelligent people acting as if the existence of evil is THE argument that disproves my belief in a loving God. (Bart Ehrman is another one who comes to mind...) I can make a case for agnosticism (though not for atheism) from a scientific point of view, but to use theodicy to dismiss the existence of God still leaves atheists with the problem of evil. Only in that case, as I see it, *you* have no answer at all--and no comfort to offer to those who suffer. I would love to know how you see it.
Pax,
Doxy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Doxy,
Thanks you for this fantastic comment. Didn't seem snarky in the least. I will respond in the next day or so here and at my blog, but I wanted to register your response and let you know ho much I appreciate it. More soon.
John
Wow! Thanks for the quick response, John. I look forward to the dialogue.
Cheers,
Doxy
I enjoyed reading this and I look forward to the answer.
Well done, Doxy. A thoughtful and well-reasoned response.
Obviously, the "perfect Christian daughter" was not that at all. I couldn't read the whole story at the Texas Monthly, because I am not a subscriber, but I'm wondering how John made the leap to that description of Erin. Perhaps, the answer lies in the TM story.
Forgiveness is a whole other matter. To take up the discussion of forgiveness would take many words, but I must say that I believe that Terry Caffey takes the right path in his efforts to forgive Erin. May God bless him in his struggle.
Doxy, I wrote a War and Peace of my own over at Purple State, simply too long to post as a comment here. Here's the link:
http://john.purplestateofmind.com/?p=424
Doxy, I think this states my atheist point of view:
without "God," (however you define that), there can be no redemption for the evil or suffering in the world. All that pain just *is*. It will never be rectified. There will never be justice for the oppressed. There will never be any recompense for suffering.
I agree that is a very bleak view, although it is mine, and I think that is very bleakness drives a human need to believe there is something else, that life isn't just unfair and random.
As you say,
I would venture to say that most people who claim a faith do so because we need to believe that the pain and suffering we DO experience (regardless of its cause) will ultimately be redeemed. That even if what we suffer is pointless, something good will come from it and our pain will not have been completely in vain.
Human nature being what it is, we want to be important. We want to matter. I think that the need for faith is part of that self-awareness.
You also say,
I can make a case for agnosticism (though not for atheism) from a scientific point of view, but to use theodicy to dismiss the existence of God still leaves atheists with the problem of evil.
I don't understand why evil is a problem. It just IS.
Hope it's okay that I jump in....
Thanks to all of you--Mimi, John, and IT--for commenting. I'll try to respond sometime tomorrow--today I've got deadlines to meet...
(And IT--you are ALWAYS welcome to jump in!)
Cheers,
Doxy
This is interesting.
I am sort of with IT but I believe anyway. Of course, I can't prove that anything ever gets redeemed. But, I'd probably have died of despair a long time ago if I didn't believe.
Ya'll keep talking. I'm listening.
I'm a process theologian, too - and a universalist. I also believe that what is broken will be repaired and love will reign. I just wish the process would go a little quicker here on earth 'cause I can't know what comes after.
I believe redemption is an innately human characteristic (we're always trying to fix things - even fix them forward if we can't fix them backward) and desire (we want to know that our lives are not in vain and that the universe is ultimately fair).
I didn't get to read the story, but I like your discussion. Thanks.
Doxy --I think I'm getting the picture as to why your Dear Friend loves you so!
As do we all. :-)
Add me to to the list of "process theologians". I have always been hesitant to describe myself as a "process theologian" because I, like you, have not been to a seminary or divinity school, have not published books on theology or taught theology in school. I always wished there were a better term for one who subscribes to process theology--a processian?--but I like the way you describe it, so for now I'll call myself a process theologian too.
Anyway, I agree with you that process theology solves the problem of theodicy, and I like the way you explain it here. I think that people who subscribe to theistic interventionism end up jumping through amazing hoops trying to explain how this is compatible with divine goodness. It just never works. Process theology solves the problem in one fell swoop.
I'm sure this will not make it past the censor. I knew Hartshorne quite well. You quote him. But he was a kind gentle, and helpful man. What I know of you, the words hateful, selfish, fake come to mind. You speaking of religion...is incomprehensible.
I'm sure this will not make it past the censor.
The first thing you are "sure" of, and are mistaken...
I knew Hartshorne quite well. You quote him. But he was a kind gentle, and helpful man.
I wish you had told us more...I did not discover Dr. Hartshorne until he had already been dead for a number of years. I'm glad to know he was kind, gentle, and helpful---he certainly helped me in my faith journey.
What I know of you, the words hateful, selfish, fake come to mind.
And what do you know of me, but words on a webpage? I know where you were when you logged in here, because I have a site tracker that tells me that information. I don't know anyone in your city, so unless we know each other from some other life, you know of me only what you read here...or project from the darkness of your own heart.
It is true that I can be hateful, selfish, and fake. Who isn't, at some point in their life? But I hope that isn't ALL that I am.
Ah...but I know something about YOU, too. You are a gutless coward. You hide behind that name "Anonymous" and say what you will not say with your name attached. I may be hateful, selfish, and fake, but at least I give a name and an e-mail address to the world--and I NEVER post anonymously. I stand behind what I say.
So which of us is "worse"? Which one of us works under the cover of darkness?
You speaking of religion...is incomprehensible.
I wonder about that too, sometimes. My faith is hard-won and there are days it seems completely absent. I fail much more often than I succeed in trying to live the way Jesus would have me to live. I write here of my struggles to do that.
But I will keep trying. And I will never, EVER hide in the shadows and say hateful things that I would be ashamed to own to the face of the one at whom my words are aimed. Lord knows I have my faults--but, in this area, at least, my dear Anonymous...I can comfort myself that I have some integrity. You, on the other hand, have shown none.
If you want to comment again, leave a name and an e-mail address. Otherwise, don't bother.
And now I'm going to go and pray for forgiveness for both of us. "Father, forgive us as we forgive those who trespass against us..."---by far the most dangerous prayer I ever pray.
Pax,
Doxy
Despite the harsness of both of our comments, I am encouraged. You did post my comment. Would that others would allow such.
You seem to think that posting anonymously is MY choice. But that is a mistake. We ran across each other on another blog. At your suggestion the blog 'owner'refused to print anything I or my stepsons wrote.This, of course, left me no choice but to post anonymously. I might add that posting "anon" gives as much information as posting as "Wormwood Doxy." What does that tell a person? Should I sign "Anon doxy," what would that show.
This is my first comment on your blog, I believe. I could be wrong.Since I have been blogging I have given more information about myself and my stepsons than any blog of which I am aware. My city,my e-mail even my church, were openly displayed. Now what did I get for this. Scurilous e-mails, blackmail threats, threats to ruin the reputation of my stepsons and myself and to damage our lives. These threats came from a Roman Catholic blogger with whom, by carelessness, we had revealed personal details of our lives.
Because the response from catholic bloggers, I suggest to my stepsons they try to blog with an Anglican. Having been Anglican for 50 years, I thought the young men might get a different perspective by going away at least for a time from RC blogs. I suggested a particular blog that had been recommended to me.This did not turn out well, as you can note if you punch on the name of this blogger which is above. The statements you made to my stepsons were cruel in the extreme and,I must say,contained a complete falsehood. It was also very embarassing to me in that I had directed them to that blog. I have changed the screen names to try to protect us from further abuse. I might add that when in a rather lengthly exchanged with the catholic blogger, he challenged me to give my name. Which I did, thinking he would reciprocate. He never did and continues to attack me as "the most anti-catholic blogger on the net" on other blogs while baring me from his blog.
I am quite aware that life is not "fair," but do recent this being taken out on on three young men 20-25.
I was a student in graduate school of Charles Hartshorne. I spent many hours in his home with his wife and teenage daughter. I can never remember him not smiling. He did not drive, but the family had a car. Since his daughter was in her teens, and his wife did not like to drive in the city he ask me to drive them many places. He introduced me to Paul Tillich and to Mark van Doren. I think Dr. Hartshorne favored me a little over the other graduate students because he did NOT like to be badgered with philosophical questions from the uninitiated. Incidentally he was interested in the two possible pronunciations of his last name---Hartsorn and Hartshorne and had made some effort to see how his parents and grandparentswanted it pronounced. There is a town in my state named after his father or grandfather that he had never visited and which he hoped to some day. The town was named, not because the ancestors had been 'famous' but becaue he was one of the first 'train'people to that area. His favorite singer was Eileen Farrell(sp?) and when she came to the university we were at he ask me to drive him to the airport to pick her up. We lunched together. At the concert I remember her first number was "My heart ever faithful" which is English for this Bach aria.
One final note. I offered to explain the situation on the blog to a cohort of yours,by e-mail. My offer was bruskly decline with a threat to post my e-mail on the person's blog, no doubt to subject me, my wife, and my daughter, her husband and grandkids and the three stepsons to abuse.
I hope this answers you questions and requests.
Credit where credit is due, Sheldon. I appreciate your willingness to sign your name.
I also appreciate the information about Charles Hartshorne. Sounds like a great man.
But I cannot stop there. I want you to tell me EXACTLY what it is that I am supposed to have said to your stepson that was "cruel in the extreme."
And I will warn you to be very careful in making that accusation---because I was subscribed to that thread and I have an e-mail copy of EXACTLY what I said to your stepson, and what he said in return. I will post it here after you reply so that others can be the judge of whose perception is reality. (You could, of course, accuse me of making it up---but I suspect I am not the only one who kept a copy of it.)
At your suggestion the blog 'owner' refused to print anything I or my stepsons wrote.
This is an outright lie, and I will thank you to stop telling it. I never made any such suggestion, and that blog owner would have told me to go jump in the lake if I had. In case you haven't noticed, he and I don't always get along so well.
Despite the claims of you and your stepsons, I have no control over what other people do on their blogs. This is the only spot on the Internet that I "control."
I'm sorry you have had such a rough time on the Net--but can you not see that your habit of holding grudges and fighting other people's battles contributes to it?
I find it somewhat disturbing that 4 months after my first interaction with your stepson at the blog in question, you are tracking me down on my blog to call me "hateful, selfish, and fake." I've seen your comments about me on other blogs and have ignored them, hoping you would get over your little obsession and get on with your life.
But you brought your lies and accusations into my "living room," as it were. I've got no desire to prolong this conversation much longer. But when I am accused of something I KNOW--and can prove--that I did not do, I'm going to stand up and call "foul."
Doxy
Sheldon---As I have promised to post my exact comment to your stepson, I feel honor-bound do that---but I will NOT argue with you about this. After this, I will no longer post any comments from you that mention this subject.
Here’s EXACTLY what I said:
*****************************************************
Wormwood's Doxy has left a new comment on the post "let's get one thing straight (again)":
Hugomar--Oh for heaven's sake! Even in the wild, wild West of the intertubes, there *is* such a thing as blog etiquette. That means that, before you drop into threads and start asking very personal questions that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, you hang out in the neighborhood for a while. Get to know the blog host and the people who hang out here. Let them get to know you.
ESPECIALLY before you start asking people whether they think it's theologically okay for you to wank off. (rolls eyes)
If you had bothered to read ANYTHING on this blog, you would know how stupid it is to claim "no one with sex on their minds allowed." It's pretty much Sex and Schism Central here.
It's not about being one of the "frozen few." It's about good manners. If someone you had never met wandered into your living room and started asking you if it was okay to masturbate, wouldn't you be a bit leery of them?
Doxy
Posted by Wormwood's Doxy to Of course, I could be wrong... at 25 March, 2009 23:28
*********************************************************
I agree it wasn’t the most congenial thing I’ve ever said, but THAT’S what constitutes “extreme cruelty” to a grown man?!?!??!! On what planet would that be seen as "cruel"?! My teenage son and his buddies routinely say stuff like that to each other, and they are friends!
I was actually offering Hugomar some good advice. But did he take it? No. He responded by calling me a “bitch” (more than once), “ugly,” “fake” (sound familiar?), and accused me and another poster who came to my defense of engaging in a specific sexual act. I think my “sin,” (if sin it was) pales in comparison to the abuse to which I was then subjected.
I NEVER called him a troll or asked MadPriest to ban him. And you can’t produce any evidence that I did (unless you fabricate it), because it never happened. If you continue to say that, you are a liar. God knows the truth of that.
Bottom line: If you don’t want to be called a troll, don’t act like one. And if you consider what I said to be “cruel in the extreme,” you’ve got a really warped sense of perspective.
I may have been rude to a newbie, but Hugomar was abusive, and you have magnified what he did by slandering me on blogs all over the Internet. That is a much bigger sin than anything I did. I encourage you to re-read the Ten Commandments and to pay attention to #9. You are in violation of it.
This discussion is done. Sheldon, I will pray for you. I hope you can let this go and find a more productive way to spend your time.
Doxy
Hi Doxy,
This poster pops up occasionally on the "regular" blogs and makes similar, wildly inaccurate accusations. As I recall people suggested his "son" make an appointment IRL with a priest to discuss his concerns but we were attacked for that as well. I think your response has been very measured and I hope can be pointed to if and when this comes up again.
BTW I still LOVE that picture in the post below this.... ;-)
Thanks, IT. And I love that photo too! In fact, I love my life. Every single second of it. :-)
Cheers,
Doxy
Post a Comment