David Bentley Hart - Suffering and the problem of evil
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 04. 2011
- In an interview with CPX (a Christian organization based in North Sydney, Australia), extremely erudite Eastern Orthodox theologian and philosopher David Bentley Hart shares a few thoughts on suffering and the problem of evil. He does so from the perspective outlined in his book, The Doors of the Sea, which was written in the aftermath of and in direct view of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.
The book can be purchased here:
www.amazon.com/Doors-Sea-Where...
The following article (reposted in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake) is more or less a rough reiteration of the central ideas presented in the book:
www.firstthings.com/onthesquar...
[note: CPX is the original creator of this video, not me. I am reposting it for others' edification. For more information, please go to www.publicchristianity.org]
But he did debate Dennett, and Dennett didn't come out of it too well -- read his readily available article "Daniel Dennett Hunts the Snark".
I studied theodicy, because I am a retired Registered Nurse (Haematology & Palliative Care), and often encountered suffering. I found the writings of STANLEY HAUERWAS ('Naming the Silences') especially compelling: because he uses another writer's example of his daughter's treatment for a form of leukaemia. Hauerwas leaves us with mystery: but not a mystery which damages the love of God.
I found Hauerwas recently in an attempt to make sense of sufferings I have seen as a medical student, and I agree with you in that he is very helpful.
@@garrettdyess1110 Thanks Garrett. I studied Theology back in the 1970s, but couldn't be ordained. In retirement it remains my reading-of-choice.
@@Mark_Dyer1 That is wonderful! Would you say Hauerwas and Hart are the most helpful writers on the relationship between suffering and Providence?
@@garrettdyess1110 I am presently reading Hart's, 'THAT ALL SHALL BE SAVED'; and have not yet encountered how he envisages 'providence' sitting in the Universalist schema, which he claims held sway in Christianity for the first centuries......perhaps even to the fifth! I also have to read, and re-read, following post-cardiac-arrest brain damage (complete cardiac block) sustained in January 2008. Aside from 'NAMING THE SILENCES', the only other book of Hauerwas I have read is 'SUFFERING PRESENCE' (but that was a long time ago). I have to admit to never thinking about 'providence' in connection with human suffering: although I suspect that it will be tackled in my present reading; given that some Christians have some very strange ideas about the providence of God.
@@Mark_Dyer1 I am sorry to hear that. Yes, I also do not understand how Providence can terminate in the suffering we see in the world. I have found Hart's DOTS to be the best take on the topic. However, I never felt like the answer to the question of why is the world this way versus another way to be answered.
It's great except for the PBS-style music in the beginning. I've been trying like hell to find some source that lists his upcoming appearances, but haven't come across any yet. Shame, I'd really love to meet him or at least see him speak.
Nice...
I find Hart's view on evil and suffering very compelling. But it raises (at least to me) a very serious question: how can one reconcille the meaninglessness of death in itself with all the death and suffering brought fourth by the natural creative powers within the processes of evolution? Is evolution, as a devinely ordained process of creation, a challenge to this view on suffering espoused by Hart?
What do you mean by the meaninglessness of death in itself?
The "Fall" of humanity explains natural evil, suffering, and death in the created order. It's not God's will.
@@Mrm1985100 Everything is God's will or he is not sovereign; and his Word insists repeatedly that he is .
@@nevbillett7554 God is not the author of evil.
@@Mrm1985100 God is creator of all things which is the same thing as saying he is the author of all things you ninny. God plonked the knowledge of evil in a tree and declared it " very good " just to spin you out hahaha
I love his point here about Christianity defying all the dark powers of the universe. There is a god who is idolatrously worshipped under the name of "realism," and the whole attitude of his worshippers is a mistake.
By "realism," BTW, I do not mean "truth." There is a profound attitudinal difference in the use of these two words.
, There are no powers of the Universe; there is only one Almighty God who created all things and is in total control of all things. The Universe is a name given to God's creation which fools use like the word "nature" as though it operated some force apart from God's control and design.
@@nevbillett7554 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
--Ephesians 6:12
@@bbilltthompson Read Colossians 1:16 and see Jesus created all principalities and powers lol. To become overcomers you need something to overcome . Hart can't get his head around God's creating evil and suffering and His use of it, that's why he talks about God's plan B after the so called fall ; God is Sovereign Omniscient Almighty, His plan A is infallible . Hell most Christians can't even believe Romans 11:32, that God jailed/ consigned everyone to disobedience/sin so that He could have mercy on everyone, let alone understand the how and why.
@@nevbillett7554 Keep reading onto Colossians 2:18 and you'll see that Paul is referring to the Colossians worship of angels (Greek: aggelos) which can also refer to "human delegates". Colossians 1:16 is talking about human government and the powers of their corruption, yet Jesus is lord even over them. Just because he is "in control" does not necessarily mean that "he controls".
@@Jordan-hz1wr Your a fruit cake mate, it says all things not human things you nut. Just because He is Sovereign doesn't mean He is in control hahaha what ward are you in?
There is another problem with Christianity regarding evil as I see it. With Christian doctrine it seemingly allows people who have done very bad things during their lives, lets say rape torture and murder, should these individuals *genuinely* repent and accept Christ, they are, so I'm led to believe, forgiven and openly welcomed into heaven, whereas, lets suppose the victims, had they been unbelievers, but had led fairly honest lives, they are cast into eternal damnation. This seems unfair in the extreme.
***** Hi David, thanks for your reply. I'm not sure that all of us are constantly causing suffering to others, and I don't think I'm always asking for forgiveness for what I've done, either to myself or others. Occasionally I will happily say sorry for something I've done that has upset someone, it's part of being human I think, we're all going to screw up at some point and nobody can please everyone all the time. I do agree with you though about "eternal damnation" being a construct of mankind. I was raised Catholic and the fear of hell stayed with me long into adulthood.
Hey, I enjoyed looking on your homepage channel and browsing through some of your favourite video's.. mostly music. I spent a good hour or so listening to some of your liked video's. I notice you had a couple of Prefab Sprout ones in your collection. My youtube name "bonnie" was named after one of their songs "bonny", there is a brilliant keyboard solo halfway through the song by Thomas Dolby that gets me everytime :-)
***** I can't seem to find the message u sent me David, was it via google+ .. it's not showing up.
DBH doesn’t believe in eternal damnation. He believes that eventually all will be saved.
How can anyone write a true theodicy until God . by revelation , gives understanding of His plan and His will for mankind's destiny which is contained in scripture .
Few love Satan for example despite Christ's plain command in scripture to do so " love your enemies " ; exposing their lack of understanding of the God who is love , along with His plan and His will.
God is Sovereign down to the roll of a dice so you better believe evil and suffering are part of His plan to achieve His will of subjecting all things unto Himself so that He is all in all.
To Easleytee -- As much as I condemn fundamentalism as a liberal innovation within the Christian tradition and do not associate myself with it at all, the idea that it represents a greater threat to civilization than atheism is both philosophically and historically illiterate. Fundamentalism may be incapable of producing a great Christian civilization, but atheism (and the attendant nihilism and relativism) cannot even sustain a civilization. It is literally a malignant and lethal cultural force. Just look at Western Europe, where all of the nations there have abandoned their traditional Christian heritage -- they are dying. Not one nation in Western Europe has a birthrate that will sustain it, and most of them have gone past the point of return. The embrace of atheism is cultural suicide. Period.
*****
Advances in science within society are in fact the result of the Christian worldview. It seems that you are mistaken about science making advances due to atheism and naturalism. I mean, look at the early thinkers who helped to practically create and contribute to modern science during the Renaissance. Think of Copernicus, Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Brahe, Pascal, Newton, Halley, Leibniz etc. What they shared was their commitment to their Christian faith. Far from being atheists, they were exceptionally devout and were known for being so.
"God gives every animal the means of saving its life-why object if he gives astrology to the astronomer?"-- Johannes Kepler
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use"-- Galileo Galilei
"He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God"-- Isaac Newton
Tourette's Aspie Aphorisms
lol...no...just...no...
I mean the world is only doing better than eve.lr under secularism. Except for certain things such as climate change and ecological collapse but thats not really a problem that cant be solved. Overall, though, i think things are looking pretty good when you compare it to literally all of human history.
Brithrates drop due to development not necessarily due to secularization.
@@twinklemoonbeam6287 yea but their contributions werent the result of christianity. Had they been atheists, they probably wouldve made the same discoveries
Did he even answer? Rather disappointed. He just said loads of words and ultimately said nothing.
agreed
He answered it but you really have to parse through the word salad. Basically god is liberating from the world for sin, which is has a mind and power of its own.
I dont really get why god would make a world that could fall into sin but thats his idea
@@philip8802 because you haven't put your thinking cap on have you ?
I have, for a large fee I could tell you
Suffering and evil are not problems for Christians.
They are for the ones who believe in Hell.
@@storba3860 Not for Fred Phelps and Steven Anderson as well as all the rest of them.
I don't believe in God. I have an alternative argument for "the problem of evil". What if there is no such thing as "evil" in our universe. I recognize that bad things happen. I recognize that there are things that are generally good(and bad) for most people. I feel that all bad things exist because we(as a species) have not learned all of our lessons yet.
Dennis, what “lessons” have we to learn? And why do they matter? If we are simply a collection of cells on a mote of dust spinning in the endless dark without meaning or reason, then there can be no metaphysical “lessons” for us to learn as a species. You’re very welcome to be an atheist! I just wonder how your metaphysical claim could possibly harmonize with atheism .
@@TheProdigalSaint Great question. I don't put any stock into metaphysics. Let's consider an example of what some would call an evil in this world(sudden infant death). This example shows that bad things happen to good people. I must assume at this date 9/14/2020 mankind still does not know why there is sudden infant death syndrome and there is no known way to stop/prevent this from happening. However, one day we(as a species) will discover why this happens and we will put measures in place to stop/prevent this from happening. Effectively learning our lesson on the subject of sudden infant death syndrome. No metaphysics involved at all. I feel confident about this because this learning happens continuously at a slow pace. Every cure or vaccine is proof of these lessons.
@@dennistucker1153 from your position, all life is ultimately directed toward the aim of perfect goodness, and evil is just the resistance we experience when that aim is opposed. But who draws that arc of achieving perfect goodness? And what is perfect goodness, anyway? It is certainly not something humanity has scripted. To believe that creation is destined for perfect goodness but simultaneously to reject the existence of God is irreconcilably contradictory, unless you are willing to conceive of goodness as no morally different from evil. The objectivities of good and evil are the direct voice of God.
@@sambyassee9132 Thanks for the reply Sam. I understand and can appreciate your views. I think that time and space may be infinite in scope. As awareness and understanding grows, it seems like the list of things that we don't understand grows as well. It's like a baby becoming aware of things in his/her crib, then a bit later becoming aware of things in the room and later becoming aware of things in the house. Each time, the baby's world expands and there are more things to become familiar with. Eventually, the baby matures and ventures into the outdoors and discovers that there are so many things that he/she cannot possibly know all about. Since I think the space and time are infinite, I doubt that there could be any limit to this learning curve. Or at least, mankind may evolve into something else long before we learn even 10% of all that is knowable. I don't think there will ever be ultimate good or ultimate bad.
@@dennistucker1153 well mathematically, space and a time are not infinite. But regardless, an ultimate good is not stagnant, it is infinite. Goodness is infinite, there is not a point where we have achieved a certain level of goodness and can go no further. What it means to reach an ultimate good for creation is to be in a state where it can only grow forward in goodness, and not backwards (hence there is no evil).
But anyway, the universe did not create itself, it is not the result of its own actions. Its order and its beauty are not calculated products of its own consciousness of itself. The universe depends on something, on a source, a mind, a power. To this we give the name God.
Evil is perplexing, it is not that much of a problem. I tell what gets me a bit is, how does the evil of men corrupt nature.
Mate, kids who have suffered with terminal cancer their whole, short lives is a problem to any claim of a wholly good god.
Evil is a tool that God uses to judge sin, like a rod on a fools back, or his predetermined deliverance of his innocent Son into wicked hands to be slain ; alleviating your stated bewilderment requires assiduous consideration of sin and judgement outlined by God's Word, and his righteousness in his application of evil and consequence of said application, both always within the realm of right securing God unsullied to any charge of sin in the evil that He does, unlike men who err in their motive for evils use and often even its definition thinking erroneously that evil and sin are one in the same and further confusing themselves and their "problem" with evil by misunderstanding God's judgement as vindictive instead of retributive whereby men learn righteousness. Like if God decides to drown millions in a flood or rain fire down on Sodom, I dare say they will have learnt something when He resurrects them and He will move them forward from their correction in whatever manner He sees fit until the glorious day all creation willingly praises Him Rev 5:13
Emma Shalliker what standard are using to make that claim? There must be a benchmark of morality - can’t have laws without a lawmaker.
Does every potential human consciousness or "soul" come into existence? No.
Then souls are not necessary to God.
Then God could exist alone and be complete without evil or suffering.
Then suffering souls are unnecessary.
Then God created evil and suffering unnecessarily.
Then God committed an evil act.
Then God cannot be a Maximally Great Being.
Because evil/suffering exists no Maximally Great Being can exist.
Therefore there is no God.
This is, and always has been, the perfect and irrefutable proof that there is no God.
cruelsuit1 Your conception of what the word "God" means is of some sort of contingent 'being,' a conscious agent in time and space. That conception of God indeed does not exist. However, that conception of God is an invention that did not emerge within theology until after the beginning of modernity (1640s with Descartes). The conception of God that reigned in Medieval and the high scholastic period (pre-modern theology) was qualitatively different than what you seem to think the word "God" signifies. You are basically correct with respect to what you think "God" means and your critique of it, but that conception of God is irrelevant to any interesting, philosophically useful, and historically significant conception of God.
bananimal45 The only significant conception of God is as a creator with an interest in his creation.
Any being capable of such universal creation would have to be omniscient with respect to such creation.
No being with such omniscience would have any reason to create. All would be known, there is no expectation possible, and thus no reason to create. That concept of God is self-contradictory.
The only philosophically "interesting" or "relevant" god for mankind is one who rewards and punishes for right and wrong behavior. Such a mind, for both omniscience and omnipotence, is shown to be an absurdity.
cruelsuit1
Again, you are basically just describing one of the gods of polytheism, albeit the most powerful one of all. Anyone who believes that "God" just means the creator of the universe or the First Cause is a monopolytheist, in that they are appealing to a single god of polytheism, a contingent being among other contingent beings. That has nothing to do with classical theology, nor with its postmodern philosophical revival, which is what the guy in this video (David Bentley Hart) cares and writes about. So, essentially, all of your arguments are straw men, because a classical theologian, like Hart, would agree with your critique of monopolytheism, which means that you aren't actually engaging him at all.
cruelsuit1 I
I address those concerns in this video series; czcams.com/video/VGqbmIfP9Xg/video.html
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
Listening to this I have one recurring thought; do people really take this clown seriously? But then I remember that there are people that take Deepak Chopra seriously.....so....meh.....
Your a fuckwit, this man is a scholars scholar, the only clowns are idiots who criticize his works because they don't understand them
@@nevbillett7554 *you're.
Odd sentence structure. What is your native language?
@@skyeangelofdeath7363 Love, you arse hole.