I recently finished a book entitled The Doors of the Sea: Where was God in the Tsunami? by David Hart. It is a tiny book with a glossy cover, but don’t be fooled into thinking it’s a simplistic pop-Christian read like The Prayer of Jabez. Hart is a serious theologian whose style of writing is almost as challenging as the problem of evil itself. He presents his defense of God’s goodness by cloaking it in poetic and archaic language. On almost every page the reader encounters words like “interlocutors,” “stochastic,” and “lachrymose”. It’s a great little book, but be sure to have a dictionary nearby!
Hart is from the Eastern Orthodox tradition, so his approach of theodicy tends a bit more toward Irenaeus than Augustine. He is very critical of Calvinists who consider natural evil like the tsunamis as being a part of God’s sovereign plan. Hart argues that God is wholly good, and therefore never causes any inherently evil event. Horrendous evils should never be attributed to the hand of God.
So, if God does not cause tsunamis, where do they come from? Hart believes that we should take the New Testament worldview more seriously. The NT authors were not sterile, modern theists who philosophized about the problem of evil. They were passionate followers of the Messiah who believed that a cosmic battle was being waged between good and evil. They were confident that God would be victorious in the end, but they also believed that evil spirits were at work in the world. So, what causes horrible natural evils? Hart suggests that it may be demons and devils.
Let me reiterate, Hart is not some crazy televangelist on cable TV. He is a scholarly theologian. He believes that the best way to explain all evils, natural and moral, is to attribute it to free beings. Humans cause much of the moral evil that we experience. Perhaps free, spiritual beings cause much of the other evils.
Hart doesn’t fully develop his view. He suggests this as an explanation of evil, and then moves on. I find his suggestion interesting, but I also wonder if it really settles the issue. I would have to ask, why does a good God allow these evil spirits to wreak havoc on humans who do not know that these spirits are acting? Couldn’t an all-powerful and good God stop events like tsunamis? Hart’s book is interesting, but not fully convincing.
7 comments:
This does sound like an interesting book. If he just suggests that demons cause natural disasters and then moves on, what does he spend the rest of his time talking about?
Another book that might be helpful here is Shmemman's book "For the Life of the World", in which he talks about Man being the head of creation and it's priest. It makes sense that when Man fell, he took everything else with him.
I think the problem of evil would be a lot less of a problem if people would get over this non-Biblical idea that the continuation of physical life is the most important thing in the universe to which everything else must bow.
P.S. Phil Tallon is moving back to Lexington, and he's been working on Theodicy and Aesthetics. You should get back in touch with him and hash this stuff out! Peace.
Incidentally, I just read an article which claims that atheists take death "seriously", while Christians don't. That's not true. Christians do take death seriously, and I am not advocating taking death lightly in my previous comment about my suggestion about knocking "the continuation of physical life" down a peg.
Peach,
You asked about what he does with the rest of the book...well, for one thing, the book is very short, so he doesn't develop anything in too much detail. I think the main point of his book is to defend God's goodness in light of evils like the tsunami. He spends much of his book criticizing Calvinism, specifically the idea that tsunamis are a part of God's divine plan. He doesn't spend much time proposing his own theodicy. He suggests a return to a NT worldview, and he mentions the free evil spirits thing, but it's only for a few pages. Personally, I think he the reason he was so brief and unclear in his suggestions is because he just didn't want to come out and simplistically say, "The devil caused the tsunami."
When is Phil moving back to the area? We could be moving in a couple of month, but we're still pretty unsure.
Hope all is well in KC.
That demons cause natural disasters is held by Augustine as well (and offered by some contemporary folk, e.g. Plantinga in the Free Will Defense offers this as a possible explanation).
I find that to be pretty incredible. I'm more inclined to go with Peter Van Inwagen. PVI thinks that pre-fall we would've been smarter and would've known when hurricanes, etc. were coming. He also suggests that at least some pains (although falling short of evil) seem to be necessary for survival and, moreover, that we can't imagine what a world even remotely similar to ours would be like without some pain. I think that he thinks there's just no good reason to think God could've created a world like ours without some pain and the real possibility for a great deal of pain.
Dr. Duns,
PVI’s theory sounds like it has some similarities to Hick’s Irenaean theodicy. It may be that pain provides that challenge necessary for soul-making. Walls borrows a number of Hick’s ideas but leaves out the universalism aspects. From what I know of Irenaean theodicy, it doesn’t take the fall to be that serious of an event. It sounds like PVI combines the framework of Irenaean theodicy but with a more central role of the fall.
PVI basically gives a story that he thinks, for all we know, is true. (I think he even believes parts of it are false but the idea is to give a plausible story to refute what he calls the "global argument from evil" which tries to show that we should believe God doesn't exist because there is too much evil in the world.)
As the story goes, the Big Bang occurs, the world evolves according to God's plan, and at a certain point God miraculously gives freedom and rationality to some primates who then become human. They were to live forever, and had preternatural powers, but inexplicably they chose to be evil. They gradually became more evil and passed on corrupted genes. God could've wiped them out but instead chose to reconcile them unto himself.
He doesn't say this but one might think of it this way: God creates a canvas and some paint exnihilo (and doesn't create the whole painting exnihilo). He then begins to paint a picture, crafting a world. Unfortunately some of the paint begins to run on the canvas which God must then redirect in the painting to make a beautiful whole.
There are lots of disanalogies with the painting and the world, but it's a tried and true example and I have tradition on my side!
Have you read Hick's theodicy? It sounds similar to PVI's but with a special emphasis on soul-making being the reason for evil. He also believes that all will be saved.
Post a Comment