The Holy Trinity

[Alison]

Yes, a good civilised dialogue.

Does science have anything to say on evil and suffering?

How do you view terminally ill situations for example? After all there isn't a God to blame!

[teamsaint]

Very interesting read this thread, and thanks to those who have taken time to post their considered thoughts.

I can only make sense of these matters by assuming, as many do now, a universal consciousness, based in a a deeply (or absolutely)interconnected universe.
It just, at the level I have read(which isn't a huge amount) makes sense, of a universe of which we understand only a modest amount.

[Pabmusic]

Yes, a good civilised dialogue.

Does science have anything to say on evil and suffering?

How do you view terminally ill situations for example? After all there isn't a God to blame!

I know I used the term 'evil' myself, but it's problematic, being akin to the supernatural. I don't actually believe in 'evil' per se, although there are plenty of evil deeds done.

So, as for evil deeds and suffering...the honest answer is that s**t happens. If I'm walking across the African plains and a lion kills me and eats me, it's a bad day for me though hardly so for the lion, which has enjoyed a good meal at my expense. If I'm engulfed in a volcanic eruption, I'm just unlucky enough to have been in the wrong place, out of all the thousands of places I could have been. If I contract a terminal illness, well I'm unlucky but no more so than thousands of others (and I've had a reasonably full life, which many of them haven't). The lion actively tries to eat me, the terminal illness might be just bad luck, or it might be caused by an organism that has a vested illness in weakening or killing me. The volcano is just bad luck.

In our transactions with others, we meet nice, indifferent or unpleasant people. Our response to each of them will depend on what we make of each other. Because we are primarily a social species, we have developed skills to 'read' each other's minds - though we sometimes get it wrong and can be easily hoodwinked because our brains have also evolved to make assumptions - such as showing the whites of out eyes at all times, so that our eyes can betray what we really think, because it's obvious in which direction we're looking. Other animals just can't do this. The development of complex speech takes this even further. (These are all probably emergent properties of big brains, which themselves became big as we banded together to cope with changing climates.)

But to say we are a 'social' species is to give an average. If we plotted people's levels of empathy, we'd get a bell curve, with most people hovering around an average and a few at either extreme (super-empathic or non-empathic). Some of these (and some of the average population, for different reasons) may be dangerous - it would be unlucky, but not impossible, to encounter one because we have evolved to feel OK in the company of other humans, and most of us seek that regularly. The problem (if it is one) is that we evolved over several million years to stick together in small groups where most people we ever encountered were related quite closely. But over the last 10,000 years - no time at all, really - we have settled in large communities where we hardly ever meet a close relative. The downside (there are many upsides) is that, among the strangers are some with little natural goodwill.

Magnificat said he thought we'd stopped evolving (presumably this is based on the common but mistaken assumption that natural selection produces perfection - to which I'd say "prostate gland"). It doesn't produce perfection, just adequacy. One area where we might still be evolving is the realm of cancers. There's lots of evidence that many cancers are related to auto-immune conditions, where the body turns on itself, as if not sure whether it's an invader or not. It's as if the balance isn't right yet between being too risk-averse (cancer) and risking too much. It might therefore be that cancer is a sign of 'work in progress' that is frustrated nowadays by our ability to fight it.

A touch of stream-of-consciouness thinking there, but it may go some way towards answering your question.

[ardcarp]

Probably our understanding of creation (whether of the universe, life and everything) is limited by human intelligence. The very latest discovery of ripples in gravitational waves thought to have been propagated in the first milliseconds after the Big Bang don't answer the question 'What came before?' Any concept involving infinity of time or space is simply beyond our ken.

[Sorry, gone off the evil and suffering bit]

[Pabmusic]

...[Sorry, gone off the evil and suffering bit]

Very easy to do,

Probably our understanding of creation (whether of the universe, life and everything) is limited by human intelligence. The very latest discovery of ripples in gravitational waves thought to have been propagated in the first milliseconds after the Big Bang don't answer the question 'What came before?' Any concept involving infinity of time or space is simply beyond our ken.

To a great extent I agree. However, just because we individuals don't understand doesn't mean to say that some other individual might not one day. There are plenty of well reasoned hypotheses about what came before, but it's testing them that's difficult - we have knowledge of only one universe. As I said above, it's plausible that time itself started with the Big Bang (it seems that time is merely a fourth dimension of space, and we're sure that started then) in which case talking of anything coming 'before' is as meaningless as talking of 'north of the North Pole'.

[Miles Coverdale]

Seriously though, it is legitimate to question why an all- loving God should allow disasters to occur.

The best I can do on this is to reiterate what I have been discussing with Pabmusic i.e. that we have to understand the existence we experience.

If an aeroplane develops a structural fault in its wing we would expect it to crash and people to be killed. Similarly, if there is a terrible earthquake buildings collapse and falling masonry will crush people to death. If these things did not happen it would be a perfect world which we would not understand.

Why does an omnipotent God not intervene? We can request Him to through prayer but it is entirely His choice. He may choose not to do so.

Do you know of a single instance where God clearly has intervened? I don't. The situation is neatly summarised by the so-called Epicurean paradox:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then he is not omnipotent.

If he is able, but not willing, then he is malevolent.

If he is both able and willing then whence cometh evil?

If he is neither able nor willing then why call him God?

However, the Christian would say that God has experienced human suffering Himself and will be with His people in their times of trial and at their deaths.

VCC.

This strikes me as nothing more than wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

[ardcarp]

talking of anything coming 'before' is as meaningless as talking of 'north of the North Pole'.

Nice analogy, Pabs, but it just goes to show how our poor human brains have to grab onto something concrete (e.g. the only way is South from the North Pole) in order to explain what is (to us) inexplicable.

[Richard Tarleton]

The obviously striking feature of the posts above from those of a Christian persuasion (Magnificat, I'm looking at you ) is how anthropocentric they are. I'd be grateful for help on a few very basic points.

What was God doing for the 14 billion years before man arrived on the scene, on this one tiny planet? When aged 14 I asked a master at school whether God simply set the whole thing in motion and then sat back to watch he told me I was talking like an 18th century deist which didn't help me much but perhaps tells you something about the sort of school I was sent to

Does God have a purpose, and if so is man central to it? (you'd assume He does, given that He sent His only-begotten etc.) And if so, why did it take so long to arrive at the main part of the project?

There have been at least 5 mass extinctions - what were they about? A re-booting of the experiment? How do you account for the next one, which wll be of us?

Is it all about us - or are there other projects on the go elsewhere? After all it's a very big (and expanding) universe. And what, if it's about us, is the rest of the universe (most of it) for?

I could go on but you get the idea. Any talk of God seems to put us at the centre of things - it's all about our relationship with Him. As late as the 18th century or so, creation was the only explanation in town, but it's becoming harder to shoehorn God into what we now know.

I caught the last half of IOT and have frankly learnt more from this thread than I did from the wrigglings of Melvyn's guests.

[decantor]

I have only just discovered how interesting this thread has become: my thanks to the contributors. Encouragingly, it reflects many discussions I have had, privately and on other boards, in some detail, though the atheistic case has – refreshingly – been argued without the usual militancy and mockery.

Personally, I am in the strange position of wanting, through intuition and upbringing, to be on Magnificat’s side of the House, but finding myself drawn to Pabmusic’s side the moment I apply what little brain God granted me…… you see my dilemma!

The only fresh thought I can bring to the debate is this: multiple dimensions. We all know the old analogy of a two dimensional beetle crawling around on the surface of a sphere: we, blessed with an extra dimension, can interact with Mr Beetle in ways that he can never comprehend. So what if God exists in a fifth – or twenty-fifth – dimension? Mathematicians can already handle multiple dimensions conceptually, but applied physicists are for ever – well, for the time being – locked out of experimentation. Thus it seems to me (a non-scientist) that some of physics’ known mysteries might eventually become explicable – the equivalent of Mr Beetle discovering the short-cut across the diameter of his sphere. This view is, I accept, even more hypothetical than the Big Bang, but it is a route by which science and God might one day be reconciled.

On the ethical issues, I start from the assumption that a “perfect world” is not only impossible (no ‘just’ unless in tension with ‘unjust’, etc) but is also undesirable: what joy in a world where absolutely everyone can compose Beethoven symphonies, yet how could ‘perfection’ allow less?

[Miles Coverdale]

This view is, I accept, even more hypothetical than the Big Bang, but it is a route by which science and God might one day be reconciled.

It seems to me that to seek to reconcile God and science is, in effect, to ask the wrong question, for it presupposes that God does exist. Surely the more noble intellectual pursuit is to seek after truth, and that course must necessarily encompass the possibility that God does not exist.

[decantor]

It seems to me that to seek to reconcile God and science is, in effect, to ask the wrong question, for it presupposes that God does exist. Surely the more noble intellectual pursuit is to seek after truth, and that course must necessarily encompass the possibility that God does not exist.

...... and, of course, the possibility that God does exist. Yes, truth must be the goal. But my hypothesis did not intend to imply the need to seek reconciliation: rather, if a much-advanced science did encounter the face of God, would it recognise Him?

[ardcarp]

Thus it seems to me (a non-scientist) that some of physics’ known mysteries might eventually become explicable

Maybe the unknowable is infinite. Man will surely discover more and more of the unknowable but there will always be yet more. Physics or metaphysics. Does God dwell in these infinite realms of unknowability? I suspect most believers, including scientists, probably prefer to keep their God separate, perceived through faith and not reason.

[Vile Consort]

So what if God exists in a fifth – or twenty-fifth – dimension?

What exactly does that mean?

It sounds like you are expecting him to be observed in the Large Hadron Collider once the energy is wound up sufficiently.

[Magnificat]

Magnificat[/B]’s side of the House, but finding myself drawn to Pabmusic’s side the moment I apply what little brain God granted me…… you see my dilemma!

decantor

Don't despair.

I've very much enjoyed my jousting with Pabmusic. He argues very strongly and ably.

He accuses people like us who have little understanding of a complex entity such as the universe, which is presumably not pointless and is there for the sake of an end, of assuming that someone made it.

However, as well as the initial cause of the Big Bang there is also the question of final causality as sketched out by Thomas Aquinas. The argument goes like this: " We see that there are things that have no knowledge such as physical bodies but which act for the sake of an end. But things which have no knowledge do not have a tendency to an end unless they are directed by something that does have knowledge and understanding. An example is an arrow directed by an archer. Therefore, there is some being with understanding which directs all things to their end, and this, we say, is God."

Of course, the scientific consensus is to ignore any such thing as final causality but this supplies the point of the cosmos. There's no point to individual finality if there is not an ultimate point to the whole system and this must be provided by an intelligence outside the system: the archer aiming the cosmic arrow.

VCC.

[Magnificat]

[QUOTE=Miles Coverdale;386132]Do you know of a single instance where God clearly has intervened? I don't. The situation is neatly summarised by the so-called Epicurean paradox:

MC

People do say that their prayers have been answered.

I'd go along with you and Pabmusic on the question of Christ's/God's suffering on the Cross and The Atonement generally. I find it very difficult to understand completely and I know that a lot of clergy avoid having to preach about it although I do remember Jeffrey John giving a sermon on this subject in St Albans Abbey that impressed me at the time but it was a while ago and unfortunately I can't remember all that he said. He's a very clever man and a fine theologian and I'm sure would answer any questions anyone might care to ask him.

VCC.