Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T20:39:43.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

God, Freedom, and Pain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Douglas Straton
Affiliation:
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon

Extract

For many people the problem of evil is a major stumbling block to belief in God. A history professor asks, why did a good God permit Hitler to incinerate millions of Jews? A parishoner wants to know why his beloved wife must lie dying of cancer? A female Pepsis wasp plunges its stinger into its tarantula victim, injecting just enough venom to paralyze, but not to kill, the spider host, so that the wasp larvae may eat the living but helpless body. Why has the syphilis germ come to be in the course of the evolution of life? It lives, survives, and thrives only in higher organic hosts, which are its victims. Treat some kinds of bacterial disease with our modern “miracle drugs” and, in reaction to the medication, mutating genes produce new, hardier strains of the destructive microbe. Why is there pain — especially when it seems “excessive,” “prolonged” and “unnecessary”? If God is good and loving, and if His power is adequate, why is there physical and mental suffering in our world? If the evolutionary process is the divinely appointed, creative method, why has so much of it taken a course of brutality and aggression? Raising the question at the most fundamental level of process, why has evolution taken place by “mutations,” many of which must be classified as “evil” when they result in the suffering of living forms? For many minds the fact of pain, and back of it, the phenomenon of “evil,” or “inept” mutation remains the unhealed core of the problem of evil, and a barrier to religious faith.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* This article rejects the concept of “the finite God” as religiously inadequate.

1 Compare F. R. Tennant, Philosophical Theology, Vol. II, Chap. VII.

2 Heredity, Race, and Society, Mentor, p. 81.

3 The Idea of God, p. 295.

4 If we conceive that He created other infinite beings like Himself, perfected in his Type of character and power, there would still be the one type of Divine Nature, Love, and Purpose. Would not the principle of unity underlie the conception, so that we would not depart from monotheism, but reaffirm it?

5 This is why the question, who made God? is “childish,” as we say, i.e., irrational. The concept itself of God renders illogical the idea of Gods creating Gods in infinite regression. Creation needs only one God of adequate moral purpose and power; more than one such God would be superfluous, and therefore irrational. The concept of “God” means His eternal purpose and power; and this implies His single nature, and rationally excludes the idea of others like Him or prior to Him.

6 Christianity, p. 327.

7 Dunn and Dobzhansky, op. cit., pp. 66–67.