On tue un homme : on est un assassin. On en tue des millions : on est un conquérant. On les tue tous : on est un Dieu. Jean Rostand
Et l’Éternel dit: J’exterminerai de la face de la terre l’homme que j’ai créé, depuis l’homme jusqu’au bétail, aux reptiles, et aux oiseaux du ciel; car je me repens de les avoir faits. Genèse 6: 7
Je suis l’Éternel, et il n’y en a point d’autre. Je forme la lumière, et je crée les ténèbres, Je donne la prospérité, et je crée l’adversité; Moi, l’Éternel, je fais toutes ces choses. Esaïe 45: 6-7
Je leur donnai aussi des préceptes qui n’étaient pas bons, et des ordonnances par lesquelles ils ne pouvaient vivre. Ezechiel 20: 25
Comment un homme aurait-il raison contre Dieu? “Ami” de Job (25: 4-6)
Suis-je vraiment intègre? Je ne saurais le dire (…) Que m’importe, après tout! C’est pourquoi j’ose dire: «Dieu détruit aussi bien l’innocent que l’impie.» Quand survient un fléau qui tue soudainement, Dieu se rit des épreuves qui atteignent les justes. (…) Et si ce n’est pas lui, alors, qui est-ce donc? Job (9: 21-24)
Ses disciples lui firent cette question: Rabbi, qui a péché, cet homme ou ses parents, pour qu’il soit né aveugle? Jésus répondit: Ce n’est pas que lui ou ses parents aient péché. Jean 9: 2-3
Quelques personnes qui se trouvaient là racontaient à Jésus ce qui était arrivé à des Galiléens dont Pilate avait mêlé le sang avec celui de leurs sacrifices. Il leur répondit: Croyez-vous que ces Galiléens fussent de plus grands pécheurs que tous les autres Galiléens, parce qu’ils ont souffert de la sorte? (…) Ou bien, ces dix-huit personnes sur qui est tombée la tour de Siloé et qu’elle a tuées, croyez-vous qu’elles fussent plus coupables que tous les autres habitants de Jérusalem? Non, je vous le dis. Jésus (Luc 13: 1-5)
Philosophes trompés qui criez: « Tout est bien » (…) Direz-vous, en voyant cet amas de victimes: « Dieu s’est vengé, leur mort est le prix de leurs crimes »? Quel crime, quelle faute ont commis ces enfants sur le sein maternel écrasés et sanglants? Lisbonne, qui n’est plus, eut-elle plus de vices que Londres, que Paris, plongés dans les délices? Lisbonne est abîmée, et l’on danse à Paris. Voltaire (1756)
Je ne vois pas qu’on puisse chercher la source du mal moral ailleurs que dans l’homme libre, perfectionné, partant corrompu (…) Sans quitter votre sujet de Lisbonne, convenez, par exemple, que la nature n’avoit point rassemblé là vingt mille maisons de six à sept étages, et que, si les habitants de cette grande ville eussent été dispersés plus également et plus légèrement logés, le dégât eût été beaucoup moindre et peut-être nul. Rousseau
Après Auschwitz, nous pouvons affirmer, plus résolument que jamais auparavant, qu’une divinité toute-puissante ou bien ne serait pas toute bonne, ou bien resterait entièrement incompréhensible (dans son gouvernement du monde, qui seul nous permet de la saisir). Mais si Dieu, d’une certaine manière et à un certain degré, doit être intelligible (et nous sommes obligés de nous y tenir), alors il faut que sa bonté soit compatible avec l’existence du mal, et il n’en va de la sorte que s’il n’est pas tout-puissant. C’est alors seulement que nous pouvons maintenir qu’il est compréhensible et bon, malgré le mal qu’il y a dans le monde. Hans Jonas
C’est comme une fête foraine, les jeux avec les pinces… Le monde est atroce, mais il y a bien pire : c’est Dieu. On ne peut pas comprendre Haïti. On ne peut même pas dire que Dieu est méchant, aucun méchant n’aurait fait cela. Christian Boltanski
Et si la survie de la terre ne pouvait être que fondée sur la morale évangélique ? Je crois que la violence, qui était au fondement des religions archaïques, n’est plus productrice de sacré, elle ne produit plus que de la violence. C’est ici que le christianisme a quelque chose de singulier à nous dire : renoncer à la violence, c’est sortir du cycle de la vengeance et des représailles. L’apocalypse n’est pas la violence de Dieu comme le croient les fondamentalistes, c’est la montée aux extrêmes de la violence humaine. Seul un nouveau rationalisme qui intègre la dimension religieuse de l’homme peut nous aider à affronter la nouvelle donne. René Girard
Séparer la religion et la science en deux sphères sans interaction est une stratégie courante depuis le 18ème siècle pour éviter les conflits entre la religion et la science. Alors que la religion (ou la théologie) et la science ont des objectifs différents et emploient des types différents de langage, cette stratégie est perdante au bout du compte. Considérons, par exemple, la question de la nature humaine. Pendant une grande partie de leur histoire, les chrétiens ont compris l’homme de manière dualiste – comme une combinaison de deux parties, le corps et l’âme. Les développements dans les neurosciences cognitives montrent de plus en plus clairement que le cerveau effectue toutes les fonctions autrefois attribuées à l’âme, alors la division s’effondre. Si les théologiens tentent de maintenir la division en ne disant que des choses qui sont à l’abri de l’investigation scientifique (en disant, par exemple, que lorsque nous parlons de l’âme, nous entendons seulement souligner la valeur ou le sens de la vie humaine), alors la théologie devient inintéressante et non pertinente. (…) La théologie a parfois besoin d’être révisée à la lumière de la science. Par exemple, la cosmologie, l’astronomie, la géologie et la biologie de l’évolution ont appelé ensemble à rejeter l’idée ancienne d’un Age d’or suivi d’une chute historique qui a changé les processus de naturels. (…) Un de mes intérêts actuels est de savoir comment une anthropologie physicaliste (c’est-à-dire une vision non dualiste de l’être humain) affecte notre compréhension des pratiques spirituelles. Cela a été fascinant pour moi de réaliser à quel point notre relation avec Dieu est une affaire corporelle : s’agenouiller devant Dieu, par exemple, ou être ému aux larmes. J’ai également travaillé sur la question de savoir comment une anthropologie physicaliste pourrait affecter l’ensemble de la théologie systématique. (…) Moi, je m’aligne sur la position du spécialiste du Nouveau Testament James Dunn qui en soutient que les auteurs bibliques n’étaient pas intéressés à cataloguer les parties métaphysiques d’un être humain – corps, âme, esprit, esprit. Leur intérêt était dans les relations. Les mots que les chrétiens ont traduits plus tard en termes philosophiques grecs et compris ensuite comme faisant référence à des parties de soi à l’origine étaient utilisés pour désigner des aspects de la vie humaine. Par exemple, l’esprit ne fait pas référence à quelque chose d’immatériel mais à notre capacité d’être en relation avec Dieu, d’être mû par l’Esprit de Dieu. Il est largement admis que la Bible hébraïque présente un récit holistique de la nature humaine, relativement proche du physicalisme contemporain. Les auteurs du Nouveau Testament connaissaient certainement diverses théories sur la nature humaine, y compris le dualisme, mais ce n’était pas leur but d’enseigner sur cette question. (…) Une grande partie de la réflexion chrétienne sur la préservation de la vie humaine prend un étrange détour. Nous savons que Jésus nous a appris à valoriser tout le monde. Son éthique est inhabituelle dans l’accent particulier qu’il met sur deux groupes : nos ennemis et ceux que nous considérons comme « les plus petits » (Matthieu 25 :46). Donc, en ce qui concerne les personnes les plus vulnérables, nous savons en tant que chrétiens que nous devons les protéger – et nous invoquons ensuite le concept de l’âme pour expliquer pourquoi. Mais pourquoi ne pas simplement dire « parce que Jésus nous le demande » ? Il y a peut-être eu une raison dans le passé d’invoquer le concept d’âme à cette fin. Dans une culture qui n’était pas chrétienne mais qui acceptait le dualisme, le langage de l’âme pouvait être utilisé en guise d’excuse pour plaider en faveur de la protection des personnes vulnérables. La tentative de l’utiliser maintenant pour des arguments éthiques dans l’arène publique ne fait qu’ajouter un obstacle, puisque la plupart des laïcs ne croient pas que nous avons une âme (et certains ne savent même pas ce que le mot est censé signifier). (…) Je suis ici de très près Stanley Hauerwas : nous devons utiliser le langage et les mandats propres à notre propre tradition pour comprendre notre propre vocation morale. Mais cela ne signifie pas que ceux qui sont en dehors de la tradition chrétienne ne peuvent pas comprendre ce que nous disons et voient dans nos idéaux un meilleur mode de vie. (…) Quand j’ai découvert pour la première fois qu’il y a encore des chrétiens qui rejettent la théorie de l’évolution (ayant grandi dans le système scolaire catholique, je n’ai pas rencontré cela dans mon enfance), j’y ai pensé comme une expression inoffensive de l’ignorance. Plus récemment, cependant, j’en suis venu à voir cela comme tragique. On enseigne à un grand nombre de jeunes que l’évolution et le christianisme ne peuvent pas être tous les deux vrais. Ils reçoivent une bonne éducation scientifique à l’université, reconnaissent la vérité de l’image de l’évolution, puis croient qu’ils doivent rejeter leur foi. Un autre changement de perspective pour moi a été de reconnaître que l’anti-évolutionnisme n’est pas toujours un produit de l’ignorance, mais peut être une réponse aux façons dont la théorie de l’évolution est prise pour parrainer diverses formes d’immoralité, de désintégration sociale, etc. L' »immoralité » que les anti-évolutionnistes actuels ont à l’esprit est un rejet des valeurs familiales « traditionnelles ». Je ne connais pas les arguments, mais je crois qu’ils impliquent de prétendre que si la théorie de l’évolution est vraie, alors nous ne sommes que des animaux. Le mouvement du dessein intelligent a pour effet malheureux de promouvoir l’idée que la science et l’enseignement chrétien sont incompatibles. Je laisse aux scientifiques le soin d’entrer dans les détails des raisons pour lesquelles l’identification échoue scientifiquement. L’échec le plus significatif est son incompréhension de l’action divine. Les chrétiens ont traditionnellement compris que Dieu agissait d’au moins deux manières : en accomplissant des actes spéciaux (providence spéciale, signes, miracles) et en maintenant constamment tous les processus naturels. Le mouvement du Dessein intelligent suppose que Dieu ne fonctionne que de la première manière. Par conséquent, pour montrer que Dieu a agi, le mouvement DI pense qu’il faut identifier un événement dans lequel aucun processus naturel n’est impliqué. C’est leur point de vue d’essayer de soutenir que des événements particuliers dans le processus évolutif ne peuvent pas être expliqués scientifiquement. (…) Les théologiens ont certainement intérêt à critiquer les affirmations exagérées de la psychologie évolutionniste, mais tout le monde aussi. Les biologistes sophistiqués reconnaissent que la culture est au moins aussi importante que la biologie pour façonner le comportement humain. L’hypothèse selon laquelle la biologie est le seul facteur qui façonne la vie humaine est un exemple de réductionnisme. Je pense que les sciences forment une hiérarchie depuis la physique en bas, en passant par la chimie, la biologie, la psychologie, jusqu’aux sciences sociales. Chaque science étudie des organisations plus complexes de la matière : atomes, molécules, substances biochimiques, cellules, tissus, organismes, sociétés. Une hypothèse frappante de l’ère moderne a été que toute causalité est ascendante – c’est-à-dire que le comportement des parties (les plus simples) contrôle entièrement le comportement de l’ensemble. C’est vrai dans certains systèmes : une horloge est conçue de manière à ce que son comportement soit strictement régi par le comportement de ses composants. Mais ce n’est pas vrai de la plupart des systèmes complexes ; dans les systèmes complexes, le tout a des effets réciproques sur ses parties. Les humains, au niveau des organismes entiers, sont certainement affectés par leurs parties biologiques, y compris leur ADN hérité, mais l’organisme entier a également des effets sur les parties (par exemple, apprendre quelque chose modifie les connexions neuronales). De plus, les sociétés dans lesquelles vivent les humains ont des effets sur les individus et à leur tour sur leur biologie. Les personnes ayant des intérêts théologiques étaient à l’avant-garde des critiques du réductionnisme, mais maintenant les scientifiques de toutes sortes et les philosophes sont également engagés. Les lois de la nature devaient être presque exactement telles qu’elles sont pour que nous existions, ce qui signifie que pour que nous existions, la nature devait également avoir la capacité d’infliger des dommages à nos corps. Je voudrais aussi que les séminaristes reconnaissent la valeur apologétique d’une foi bien informée. Il est courant de s’attendre à ce que les pasteurs soient sophistiqués en ce qui concerne la littérature et les arts. La culture scientifique est tout aussi essentielle. La capacité de fournir une interprétation théologique de la science est aussi importante pour les pasteurs que pour les théologiens universitaires. (…) les géologues peuvent expliquer pourquoi une planète sans ce recyclage de sa croûte ne pourrait pas supporter la vie telle que nous la connaissons. Dieu ne cause pas (intentionnellement) des tsunamis, mais crée un monde dans lequel la destruction de la vie est un sous-produit indésirable mais nécessaire des conditions qui permettent la vie humaine. (…) Dans un livre que j’ai écrit avec George Ellis, mathématicien appliqué et activiste quaker (Sur la nature morale de l’Univers), nous avons commencé par les preuves d’un ajustement cosmologique, puis avons soutenu que la meilleure explication pour cet ajustement n’est pas un simple théisme mais plutôt un Dieu compris en termes d’auto-sacrifice de Jésus. Ce concept de Dieu est nécessaire pour donner un sens au fait que Jésus est « le chemin, la vérité et la vie » dans le sens où le salut de la race humaine (dans cet éon) dépend de l’acceptation de son mode de vie d’amour tout inclusif, ennemis compris. Seule cette réponse peut arrêter la spirale descendante de la haine, de la violence et de l’oppression. L’accent mis sur le salut dans cette vie n’est pas de nier l’au-delà, mais cela devrait détourner notre attention de la spéculation sur qui « y arrive » ou non à la fin. (…) Vous ne pourriez jamais passer directement du monde naturel à l’éthique de Jésus, mais à la lumière de Jésus, nous pouvons regarder le monde naturel et voir des analogies. L’une de ces analogies serait l’idée – tenue par la plupart des théologiens libéraux – que l’action de Dieu ne viole pas les lois de la nature. En fait, parce que je ne donne pas aux « lois » le statut ontologique que beaucoup font, je ne parlerais pas de violer les lois de la nature mais de violer la nature des créatures. Dieu crée des êtres avec leurs propres pouvoirs et propensions, et ne viole pas leur nature fondamentale en interagissant avec eux. Cette retenue de Dieu est analogue à l’auto-abnégation de Jésus. Parce que c’est ainsi que Dieu entre en relation avec ses créatures, je ne considérerais pas l’histoire de Dieu faisant parler l’âne de Balaam (dans Nombres 22) comme ayant un contenu historique. C’est une violation de la nature d’un âne que de le faire parler. Pour prendre un autre exemple : les opposants au christianisme utilisent parfois la violence de la prédation pour affirmer soit qu’il n’y a pas de Dieu, soit que Dieu a créé un monde inutilement cruel. La science peut nous dire, cependant, que la prédation est nécessaire pour notre vie sur la Terre. Nous pouvons alors nous joindre aux anabaptistes du XVIe siècle pour voir la souffrance des bêtes de somme et des animaux de proie comme une participation au drame de la création et de la rédemption de Dieu. Cela s’appelait « l’évangile de toutes les créatures ». (…) J’ai (…) cherché des textes qui soutiendraient un sermon sur la théologie et la science. Ce que j’ai conclu, c’est que ce que l’Écriture a à dire sur le monde naturel est toujours dit dans le but d’enseigner de justes relations avec Dieu et avec la communauté. La nature elle-même n’intéresse pas beaucoup les auteurs bibliques. Ainsi, les sermons basés sur de tels textes peuvent commencer par quelques réflexions inspirées par la science, mais s’ils sont fidèles au texte, ils finiront probablement par parler du culte de Dieu et de la justice et de la paix avec nos voisins. Par exemple, Esaïe écrit : « Car ainsi parle le Seigneur, qui a créé les cieux (il est Dieu !), qui a formé la terre et l’a faite (il l’a établie ; il n’en a pas fait un chaos, il l’a formée pour qu’elle soit habitée !) : Je suis le Seigneur, et il n’y en a pas d’autre » (45 : 18). L’univers pour qu’il soit un endroit où vivre plutôt qu’un déchet informe. Mais le point principal, comme l’explique juste après Esaïe, est ceci: « Il n’y a pas d’autre Dieu que moi, un Dieu juste et sauveur; il n’y a personne à part moi; tournez-vous vers moi et soyez sauvés, toutes les extrémités de la terre ! Car je suis Dieu, et il n’y en a pas d’autre. Nancey Murphy
Huit cents ressortissants européens combattent actuellement le régime de Bachar el-Assad en Syrie, selon les estimations d’un diplomate de l’Union européenne (UE), confirmées par un dirigeant de l’opposition. Certains ont rejoint le groupe djihadiste Jabhat al-Nosra, classé terroriste par les États-Unis, qui vient de prêter allégeance à al-Qaida. Jamais autant d’habitants du Vieux Continent n’ont afflué en aussi grand nombre sur une période aussi courte – un peu plus d’une année – pour livrer la «guerre sainte» à un régime qui réprime de manière sanglante ses opposants et que l’Europe elle-même combat depuis deux ans. Parmi ces 800 Européens figurent une centaine de Français ou de Franco-Syriens, 50 à 70 Belges, une centaine de Britanniques, de nombreux Allemands, notamment d’origine turque, des Irlandais, des Kosovars, des Danois. Bref pratiquement tous les pays européens sont concernés. (…) Le retour de jeunes, radicalisés au contact de vieux briscards du djihad, est la hantise des services de sécurité européens. Certains auront acquis un savoir-faire qui peut servir à perpétrer des opérations terroristes dans leur pays d’origine. Mais la justice pourra-t-elle criminaliser leurs voyages en Syrie, dont le régime est dénoncé par les capitales européennes? En outre, des binationaux figurent parmi ces candidats au djihad. «Il est difficile de leur dénier le droit d’aller résister à un pouvoir qui massacre sa population», soulignait récemment le juge antiterroriste Marc Trévidic. Le Figaro
These great tragedies and collective punishments that are wiping out villages, towns, cities and even entire countries, are Allah’s punishments of the people of these countries, even if they are Muslims. We know that at these resorts, which unfortunately exist in Islamic and other countries in South Asia, and especially at Christmas, fornication and sexual perversion of all kinds are rampant. The fact that it happened at this particular time is a sign from Allah. It happened at Christmas, when fornicators and corrupt people from all over the world come to commit fornication and sexual perversion. That’s when this tragedy took place, striking them all and destroyed everything. It turned the land into wasteland, where only the cries of the ravens are heard. I say this is a great sign and punishment on which Muslims should reflect. All that’s left for us to do is to ask for forgiveness We must atone for our sins, and for the acts of the stupid people among us and improve our condition. We must fight fornication, homosexuality, usury, fight the corruption on the face of the earth, and the disregard of the lives of protected people. Sheik Fawzan Al-Fawzan (member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body and professor at the Al-Imam University)
When we try, however inadequately, to see things from God’s viewpoint rather than our own, things become quite different. There is suddenly nothing unfair about the deaths of any one of us, no matter what the circumstances. God is the sovereign Judge who is totally holy (1 John 1:5). It would therefore be impossible to overstate His utter abhorrence of even the slightest sin. From His perspective, it would be totally lawful and just to wipe out all of us, in whatever fashion. But God is also merciful and loving (2 Peter 3:9), and longsuffering. In the most profound display of mercy and grace imaginable, He stepped into our shoes as a man, God the Son. He came to suffer and die, not in some sort of ooey-gooey martyrdom, but so that His righteous anger against sin could be appeased and the penalty paid for those who place their trust in Jesus Christ and receive His free gift—forgiveness of their sin and admission into God’s family—by faith. (…) A skeptic at one of my talks said publicly that the Flood would make God “the biggest mass murderer in history.” But murder is defined as the unlawful killing of innocent human life. First, from God’s perspective post-Fall, there is no such thing as an “innocent human”. And second, the concept of murder presupposes a universal law that such things are wrong, which can only be so if there is a Lawgiver, which the skeptic was trying to deny. As Creator, God has decreed that it is unlawful for a human being to take another human’s life, but the Judge of all the earth does not Himself do wrong when He takes a life, which in a very real sense happens whenever any of us die, regardless of what is called the “proximate” cause (whether tsunami, heart attack or even suicide). Carl Wieland
Attention: un tueur de masse peut en cacher un autre !
Au lendemain du passage d’une des plus dévastatrices tornades de l’histoire récente américaine …
Où l’on ne peut s’empêcher de penser aux familles des dizaines de victimes dont nombre d’enfants dans leurs écoles hélas sans abris …
Pendant que chez nous un Heidegerrien s’éclate au nom du contre-printemps arabe en plein Notre-Dame et qu’au Levant nos futurs cavaliers de l’Apocalypse font leurs classes façon brigades internationales dans une réédition jihadiste de la guerre d’Espagne …
Comment ne pas repenser aux inanités qui avaient été prononcées suite au tsunami de 2005 …
Et ne pas être révolté devant l’aberration d’un certain discours littéraliste de fondamentalistes chrétiens ou musulmans ….
Qui passant complètement à côté de l’apport spécifique du récit biblique par rapport aux textes manifestement mythiques et babyloniens dont il s’inspire …
A savoir la perspective monothéiste et éthique mais aussi par voie de conséquence l’attribution à ladite divinité de l’origine du bien comme du mal: le dieu qui punit est aussi celui qui sauve …
Comme d’une perspective chrétienne mais scientifico-compatible où la destruction de la vie comme dans les tsunamis ou la prédation serait en fait le sous-produit indésirable mais nécessaire des conditions permettant la vie humaine …
En arrive, à l’instar des prétendus amis de Job, à justifier l’injustifiable, faisant de Dieu le plus grand tueur de masse de l’histoire ?
Tsunami terror raises age-old questions
Carl Wieland
CMI–Australia
30 December 2004
Compared to seeing a plane plunge into a skyscraper, the first amateur video shots showing a surge of brown water overpowering the blue of a resort pool didn’t seem to rate high on the scale of horror.
But as the images kept pouring in and the estimated death toll kept rising, into the six figures even, it became apparent that the Asian tsunami disaster makes 9/11 seem tame by comparison.
Of course, 9/11 was triggered by the deliberate actions of people, whereas the tsunami disaster is in quite a different category. No human action, nor any failure to act, caused this Indian Ocean catastrophe.
The killer waves were set off by a massive undersea earthquake, apparently the result of slippage of tectonic plates after years of pent-up strain. Some coastlines are estimated to have moved as much as 20 meters (65 ft.).1 An earthquake of magnitude 9, like this one, sounds “almost twice as bad” as a more common one of magnitude 5; but the Richter scale is an logarithmic one. That means a “9” is really 10,000 times as violent as a “5”. [In fact, this refers only to the wave amplitude. The energy involved is actually a million times greater.] The giant quake shook the world with the force of millions of Hiroshima-size atomic bombs. Sensitive instruments were said to have picked up an effect on the earth’s rotation; the globe was described as “ringing like a bell” afterwards.
Philosophers refer to the problem of “natural evil”—people suffering and dying from things that have no apparent link to “human evil”—or even human carelessness. So much seemingly senseless sorrow and loss, regardless of the cause, inevitably raises the same sorts of questions about God, death and suffering as 9/11 did. Namely, regardless of whether people or “natural disaster” are the cause, if God is all-powerful and loving, why does He allow it?
In earlier times, insurance jargon for such an event, especially one for which adjectives like “biblical” or “near-biblical” have been applied by newspapers to its scale of tragedy, would have been “an act of God”. In our more secular, evolutionized times, reports have generally used terms such as “nature’s fury” or “Mother Nature’s wrath”. But does God just sit back and “let things happen”? I.e., is “nature” independent of God? That would have the advantage for the Christian of removing some of the responsibility for natural disasters, but would it be a biblical view of God?
If He is who He says He is, the sovereign of the universe—the One who is continually upholding the entire cosmos with the Word of His power—there are implications for events such as this. I suggest that when I let go of a compressed spring and watch it cavort in seeming randomness as it releases its stored energy, it is, despite appearances, not something that “just happens” without the involvement of God. (I would submit that reflection on the meaning of God’s sovereignty leads to the conclusion that God is either in everything, or He is in nothing.)
Similarly, as the tectonic plates off Sumatra slipped past one another and released their huge amount of pent-up power, this (and the titanic consequences for so many) was not something that just “happened”, independent of God. Just as it is not mere happenstance when the sparrow falls from the sky (Matthew 10:29).
But that does not mean that it was a “supernatural” or miraculous event. The sparrow falling can be described in terms of “natural” laws like gravity, but God is “in it” totally, completely. (As has been said before, “natural law” describes God’s “normative” way of operating within this universe. Miracles refer to his non-normative operation.)
Equally, the combinations of genes as sperm meets egg follow the (from our viewpoint) random laws of chance. Thus, if a couple with a certain mix of genes were to have enough children, one could predict that ¾ would be brown-eyed, the remaining ¼ blue, for example—just as determined by the laws of chance. But it would be a gross caricature of God if we were to imagine Him to be uninvolved in the inherited makeup of an individual. Hopefully, not many readers will think that God is helplessly dependent on the outcome of a genetic lottery when it comes to our own abilities and predispositions, both positive and negative. But if we try to avoid God’s responsibility for the killer tsunami, and pass the event off as “natural” (read “truly random”) then we are doing the same thing—we have reduced God, the all-powerful Creator God who created countless galaxies in the blink of an eye, to a helpless or impotent bystander.
To put God at the helm of events, while thoroughly biblical, raises disturbing questions, of course, in the face of the Indian Ocean nightmare. The immense unfairness of it all, for one thing. Poor villagers, already facing enormous handicaps in their ordinary lives, battered emotionally and physically beyond belief. Young children, brutally torn out of their mother’s arms and suffocated by water. But before raging at the unfairness of it all, and at God, we would do well to “zoom out” and look at the bigger picture.
Each day, some hundreds of thousands of people die. We see this as somehow “natural”, yet humanly speaking, what’s fair about that, either? In fact, what’s “fair” about any death? If God prevented all deaths except the death of one solitary person, that one death would also be “unfair”—perhaps even more so.
So the question becomes much bigger; not just “why 9/11” or “why the tsunami tragedy”—it becomes one of “why is there any death and suffering at all?” And it has to be faced squarely by Christians, since we claim to have the answers to the true meaning of life, the universe and everything.
But how can one even begin to give a Christian answer, one with biblical integrity, without taking Genesis history seriously?2 That history tells of the creation of a once-good world, in which death and suffering are not “natural” at all, but are intruders. They occur because of humanity’s rebellion against its maker (Genesis 3). But if fossils formed over millions of years, which so many Christians just blithely accept as “fact”, then that wipes out the Fall as an answer to evil, especially “natural evil”. Because the fossils show the existence of things like death, bloodshed and suffering. So if these were there millions of years ago, they must have been there before man, and hence before sin. This is the rock against which old-age compromises inevitably founder. This is also the reason why the age of things is not some obscure academic debate that Christians can put in the “too-hard-for-now” basket. Because it strikes to the heart of the hugest questions of all in relation to the nature of God, sin, evil, death; questions at the very core of Christian belief (or reasons given for nonbelief, for that matter).
The tsunami and the Flood
The superquake that set off the recent Asian tsunami disaster is believed to have resulted from the sudden slippage of two tectonic plates in the earth’s crust. The most prominent theory today concerning the mechanism of the Genesis Flood is that of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT). Its chief proponent is leading creationary scientist Dr. John Baumgardner. Dr. Baumgardner, who recently retired after years of service at Los Alamos National Laboratories, is also a world-renowned expert on plate tectonics (involving the current models of the mechanics and dynamics of the earth’s crust). He rejects the millions of years normally associated with plate tectonics and its corollary, “continental drift”, and points to ample scientific evidence to support the view that the movements of continents, for instance, had to have happened relatively quickly. (See The Creation Answers Book, Chapter 11.) Watching the results of a relatively minor (though horrific in its consequences) slippage of two plates against each other, it’s not hard to imagine some of the forces which would have been unleashed at the time of Noah’s Flood—CPT has the entire ocean floor recycled in a matter of weeks. No wonder the Bible has a special Hebrew word (mabbul, different from the ordinary word for “flood”) which it reserves exclusively for the Flood, the cataclysm in the days of Noah that destroyed the earth and is responsible for vast amounts of sedimentary and fossil-bearing layers. Incidentally, Korean naval architects showed that the Ark could have withstood waves 4–5 times taller than this tsunami (only about 20 feet or 6 metres high) see Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway.
When we try, however inadequately, to see things from God’s viewpoint rather than our own, things become quite different. There is suddenly nothing unfair about the deaths of any one of us, no matter what the circumstances. God is the sovereign Judge who is totally holy (1 John 1:5). It would therefore be impossible to overstate His utter abhorrence of even the slightest sin. From His perspective, it would be totally lawful and just to wipe out all of us, in whatever fashion.3
But God is also merciful and loving (2 Peter 3:9), and longsuffering. In the most profound display of mercy and grace imaginable, He stepped into our shoes as a man, God the Son. He came to suffer and die, not in some sort of ooey-gooey martyrdom, but so that His righteous anger against sin could be appeased and the penalty paid for those who place their trust in Jesus Christ and receive His free gift—forgiveness of their sin and admission into God’s family—by faith.
There are daily reminders of His Curse on all creation all around us. When they are punctuated by horrifically sad concentrated bursts such as this recent disaster, we are doubly reminded of the awfulness of sin. Does knowing the answers to the “big picture” make us callous to suffering? Far from it. We are moved even more by compassion, just as the Lord Jesus was when He lived among us. Because of Jesus, Christians—those who take the Bible as the Word of God, and know Jesus Christ as the Creator incarnate—will tend to be at the forefront of digging into their pockets to help alleviate the agony. Let me explain how I can say this with confident hope.
A World Vision representative once told me confidentially that it is conservative, Bible-believing churches and Christians who are far and away the most generous givers to that organisation’s efforts to help people in poor countries.4 That makes sense, of course; God’s Word commands us to do good to all men. But if one did not believe the Bible to be really, truly true, there would be a shortage of strong motivating factors to sacrifice heavily for others. Whereas (if I may be forgiven a modest adjustment of the magnificent words of the great missionary, C.T. Studd): “If (since) Christ is God and died for me [i.e., the Bible is really, truly, totally true], then nothing I can do in obedience to Him can ever be too much”.
Addendum (01/04/05)—further resources on our website
Why is there Death and Suffering?—by Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati
Why Would a Loving God Allow Suffering
How can you help?
While Creation Ministries International (formerly Answers in Genesis) is not involved directly in any disaster relief efforts, we recognize that many of our readers might want to help. May we recommend that you participate through your local church or a mission agency with which you are familiar. If you are interested in other Christian ministries, please take a look at http://www.gospelcom.net/content/disaster. To participate with the world wide efforts, you can do a google search on “christian tsunami relief.”
References and notes
Even higher figures have been mooted. Some experts have suggested that much of the movement may have been horizontal, not vertical, however.
Incidentally, despite various challenges by unbelievers, there is no burden of explanation on the Christian as to why particular things happened. E.g., why certain people or groups of people died when others did not. As discussed here, a “natural” disaster, despite being totally God’s activity, will (in the absence of the miraculous or non-normative activity of God) follow a pattern that looks “random”. I.e., it will obey the natural laws that describe God’s normative activity. So there is no need to feel philosophically intimidated by reports of a Christian dying while the Hindu next to him is spared, for example. When the Tower of Siloam collapsed and killed people (Luke 13:4-5), Jesus made it plain that they did not die because they were “more sinful” than those who were spared. For more (admittedly inadequate) thoughts on apparent randomness and God’s actions, see my discussion in the book Walking Through Shadows on “butterfly effects” and the “cockroach that killed Princess Diana”.
A skeptic at one of my talks said publicly that the Flood would make God “the biggest mass murderer in history.” But murder is defined as the unlawful killing of innocent human life. First, from God’s perspective post-Fall, there is no such thing as an “innocent human”. And second, the concept of murder presupposes a universal law that such things are wrong, which can only be so if there is a Lawgiver, which the skeptic was trying to deny. As Creator, God has decreed that it is unlawful for a human being to take another human’s life, but the Judge of all the earth does not Himself do wrong when He takes a life, which in a very real sense happens whenever any of us die, regardless of what is called the “proximate” cause (whether tsunami, heart attack or even suicide).
Liberal Christians (i.e., those who take alarming liberties with biblical truths) talk a lot about social justice and helping poor countries—all noble concepts, of course. But in practice, although keen to see laws passed to take money from others, they are as a group less enthusiastic about dipping into their own pockets.
Tsunami Timeline (most recent first)
1/20/05 – 8:00 am — the death toll continues to rise — 225,000 now believed dead throughout the region. Billions of dollars and other forms of aid are pouring in. The UN is spearheading a number of projects, including a world-wide tsunami warning system.
1/4/05 — 1:54 pm — over $2 billion has been donated by governments around the world. An additional $520 million is coming in from private donations.
12/30/04 — 2:30 pm — official estimates top 116,000 dead.
12/30/04 — Indonesian officials change the estimated deaths from 45,000 to 79,940.
12/27/04 — by late Monday official estimates are set at 26,000 dead.
12/26/04 — 10:58 am — only 500 are assumed dead.
12/26/04 — 10:43 am — the tsunami hits Sri Lanka, South India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Bangladesh
12/26/04 — 10:30 am — a 15 foot (5 m) wave hits Sumatra.
12/26/04 — shortly after 7:00 am — a number of aftershocks and subsequent earthquakes are registered by tracking stations around the world.
12/26/04 (Sunday) — 12:00 am GMT, 8:00 am Sri Lanka an undersea earthquake measuring 8.9 on the Richter scale shakes the area 160 km off shore.
The tsunami and the Flood
The superquake that set off the recent Asian tsunami disaster is believed to have resulted from the sudden slippage of two tectonic plates in the earth’s crust. The most prominent theory today concerning the mechanism of the Genesis Flood is that of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT). Its chief proponent is leading creationary scientist Dr. John Baumgardner. Dr. Baumgardner, who recently retired after years of service at Los Alamos National Laboratories, is also a world-renowned expert on plate tectonics (involving the current models of the mechanics and dynamics of the earth’s crust). He rejects the millions of years normally associated with plate tectonics and its corollary, “continental drift”, and points to ample scientific evidence to support the view that the movements of continents, for instance, had to have happened relatively quickly. (See The Creation Answers Book, Chapter 11.) Watching the results of a relatively minor (though horrific in its consequences) slippage of two plates against each other, it’s not hard to imagine some of the forces which would have been unleashed at the time of Noah’s Flood—CPT has the entire ocean floor recycled in a matter of weeks. No wonder the Bible has a special Hebrew word (mabbul, different from the ordinary word for “flood”) which it reserves exclusively for the Flood, the cataclysm in the days of Noah that destroyed the earth and is responsible for vast amounts of sedimentary and fossil-bearing layers. Incidentally, Korean naval architects showed that the Ark could have withstood waves 4–5 times taller than this tsunami (only about 20 feet or 6 metres high) see Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway.
Voir encore:
Special Dispatch No. 842
MEMRI
January 7, 2005
Following practically all international events of importance, conspiracy theories are raised in the Arab and Muslim worlds. This occurred most recently following the Asian tsunami. Some of these conspiracy theories focused, as they often do, on allegations that it was a plot by the U.S. and Israel. Others speculated that the tsunami was a divine punishment for sins, including that of celebrating Christmas. The following are speeches and articles which appeared in the Arab media raising conspiracy theories about the cause of the tsunami; more will be posted on the MEMRI TV Project website (www.memritv.org) in the coming days:
Palestinian Friday Sermon by Sheik Mudeiris: The Tsunami is Allah’s Revenge at Bangkok Corruption
The following are excerpts from a Friday mosque sermon aired on Palestinian Authority TV by Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris, which was recorded and translated by the MEMRI TV Monitor Project:
» What happened there, in South-East Asia … we ask God to have mercy upon all the martyrs – for he who dies by drowning is a martyr. We ask God to have mercy upon all the Muslims who died there. Allah willing, they are martyrs. But, don’t you think that the wrath of the earth and the wrath of the sea should make us reflect? Tens of thousands dead, and many predict that the number will be in the hundreds of thousands. We ask God for forgiveness. When oppression and corruption increase, the law of equilibrium applies. I can see in your eyes that you are wondering what the ‘universal law of equilibrium’ is. This law is a divine law. If people are remiss in implementing God’s law and in being zealous and vengeful for His sake, Allah sets his soldiers in action to take revenge.
« The oppression and corruption caused by America and the Jews have increased. Have you heard of these beaches that are called ‘tourists’ paradise?’ You have all probably heard of Bangkok. We read about it, and knew it as the center of corruption on the face of this earth. Over there, there are Zionist and American investments. Over there they bring Muslims and others to prostitution. Over there, there are beaches, which they dubbed ‘tourists’ paradise,’ while only a few meters away, the locals live in hell on earth. They cannot make ends meet, while a few meters away there is a paradise, ‘tourists’ paradise.’
« Do you want the earth to turn a blind eye to the corrupt oppressors? Do you want the sea… Do you want the sea to lower its waves in the face of corruption that it sees with its own eyes?! No, the zero hour has come. »[1]
Advisor to Saudi Arabia’s Justice Minister: The Nations were Destroyed for Lying, Sinning, and being Infidels
Ibrahim Al-Bashar, an advisor to Saudi Arabia’s Justice Minister, argued on the Saudi Arabian/UAE Al-Majd TV channel that the sins of the affected countries caused the tsunami:
« Whoever reads the Koran, given by the Maker of the World, can see how these nations were destroyed. There is one reason: they lied, they sinned, and [they] were infidels. Whoever studies the Koran can see this is the result…
« Some intellectuals, philosophers, and journalists – may Allah show them the straight path – say this is the wrath of nature. Whoever is angry must have a soul and a brain in order to act out his anger. Does the earth have a brain and a body with a soul? They talk about the wrath of nature, or else they claim that what happened was due to a fissure in the depths of the earth, which the earth’s crust could not bear. They connect cosmic matters.
« But who is the one that cracked it, split it, and commanded it to quake?! Why don’t we ask that question? Who is the one that sent the wind? Who sent the floods? But they tell you that it was due to the ebb and tide, and that the barometric depressions are to blame. Who commanded them to do so?
« These countries, in which these things occurred – don’t they refrain from adopting Allah’s law, which is a form of heresy? Man-made laws have been chosen over Allah’s law, which has been deemed unsuitable to judge people?! Whoever does not act according to Allah’s law is a heretic, that’s what Allah said in the Koran. Don’t these countries have witchcraft, sorcery, deceitfulness, and abomination? »[2]
Saudi Professor Sheikh Fawzan Al-Fawzan: Allah Punishes for Homosexuality and Fornication at Christmas
The following are excerpts from an interview on Saudi/UAE’s Al-Majd TV with Sheikh Fawzan Al-Fawzan, a professor at the Al-Imam University, which was recorded and translated by the MEMRI TV Monitor Project:
« These great tragedies and collective punishments that are wiping out villages, towns, cities, and even entire countries, are Allah’s punishments of the people of these countries, even if they are Muslims.
« Some of our forefathers said that if there is usury and fornication in a certain village, Allah permits its destruction. We know that at these resorts, which unfortunately exist in Islamic and other countries in South Asia, and especially at Christmas, fornication and sexual perversion of all kinds are rampant. The fact that it happened at this particular time is a sign from Allah. It happened at Christmas, when fornicators and corrupt people from all over the world come to commit fornication and sexual perversion. That’s when this tragedy took place, striking them all and destroyed everything. It turned the land into wasteland, where only the cries of the ravens are heard. I say this is a great sign and punishment on which Muslims should reflect.
« All that’s left for us to do is to ask for forgiveness. We must atone for our sins, and for the acts of the stupid people among us and improve our condition. We must fight fornication, homosexuality, usury, fight the corruption on the face of the earth, and the disregard of the lives of protected people. »[3]
Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Munajjid: Allah Finished Off the Richter Scale in Revenge of Infidel Criminals
The following are excerpts from an interview on Saudi/UAE’s Al-Majd TV with Saudi cleric Muhammad Al-Munajjid, which was recorded and translated by the MEMRI TV Monitor Project:
« The problem is that the [Christian] holidays are accompanied by forbidden things, by immorality, abomination, adultery, alcohol, drunken dancing, and … and revelry. A belly dancer costs 2500 pounds per minute and a singer costs 50,000 pounds per hour, and they hop from one hotel to another from night to dawn. Then he spends the entire night defying Allah.
« Haven’t they learned the lesson from what Allah wreaked upon the coast of Asia, during the celebration of these forbidden? At the height of immorality, Allah took vengeance on these criminals.
« Those celebrating spent what they call ‘New Year’s Eve’ in vacation resorts, pubs, and hotels. Allah struck them with an earthquake. He finished off the Richter scale. All nine levels gone. Tens of thousands dead.
« It was said that they were tourists on New Year’s vacation who went to the crowded coral islands for the holiday period, and then they were struck by this earthquake, caused by the Almighty Lord of the worlds. He showed them His wrath and His strength. He showed them His vengeance. Is there anyone learning the lesson? Is it impossible that we will be struck like them? Why do we go their way? Why do we want to be like them, with their holidays, their forbidden things, and their heresy? »[4]
Egyptian Nationalist Weekly: U.S.-Israel-India Nuclear Testing May have Caused Asian Tsunami; The Goal: Testing how to Liquidate Humanity
The Egyptian nationalist weekly Al-Usbu’ has published an investigation by correspondent Mahmoud Bakri, titled « Humanity in Danger, » claiming that the earthquake and tsunami in Asia may have resulted from joint nuclear testing by the U.S., Israel, and India. The following are excerpts from the article:
« Was [the earthquake] caused by American, Israeli, and Indian nuclear testing on ‘the day of horror?’ Why did the ‘Ring of Fire’ explode?
« … According to researchers’ estimates, there are two possible [explanations] for what happened. The first is a natural, divine move, because the region is in the ‘Ring of Fire,’ a region subject to this destructive type of earthquakes.
» The second possibility is that it was some kind of human intervention that destabilized the tectonic plates, an intervention that is caused only in nuclear experiments and explosions. What strengthens this direction [of thought] are the tectonic plates [under] Indian soil [ sic ], since in the recent few months, India conducted over seven nuclear tests to strengthen its nuclear program against the Pakistani [nuclear program].
« [Various] reports have proven that the tectonic plates in India and Australia collided with the tectonic plates of Europe and Asia. [It has also been proven] that India recently obtained high[-level] nuclear technology, and a number of Israeli nuclear experts and several American research centers were [involved in preparing this].
« The three most recent tests appeared to be genuine American and Israeli preparations to act together with India to test a way to liquidate humanity. In the[ir] most recent test, they began destroying entire cities over extensive areas. Although the nuclear explosions were carried out in desert lands, tens of thousands of kilometers away from populated areas, they had a direct effect on these areas.
« Since 1992, many research [institutes] monitoring earthquakes across the world, such as the International Center for the [Study] of Earthquakes [sic] in Britain and in Turkey and other countries, [indicated] the importance of no nuclear testing in the ‘Ring of Fire,’ where the most recent earthquake struck, because this region is thought to be one of the most geologically active regions over millions of years. Thus, the international centers have always classified it as one of the most dangerous regions [and] likely to shift at any given moment, even without human interference.
« But the scientific reports stated that there had been nuclear activity in this region – particularly after America’s recent decision to rely largely on the Australian desert – part of which is inside the ‘Ring of Fire’ – for its secret nuclear testing.
« Similarly, many international reports spoke of joint Indian-Israeli nuclear activity. Moreover, only this year Arab and Islamic countries intervened more than three times in the U.S. to stop this joint nuclear activity.
« Nevertheless, although so far it has not been proven that secret Indian-Israeli nuclear testing is what caused the destructive earthquake, there is evidence that the recent nuclear tests, the exchange of nuclear experts between India and Israel, and the American pressure on Pakistan regarding its nuclear cooperation with Asian and Islamic countries [by providing India with advanced nuclear technology in an attempt to stop Pakistani activity] – all these pose a big question mark regarding the causes of the severe earthquake in Asia.
« Scientific studies prove that there is increasing nuclear activity under the waters of the oceans and seas … and that America is the first country in the world responsible for this activity. This raises an enormous question mark… What is puzzling is that all the previous earthquakes did not cause such great destruction [as this one], particularly [in light of the fact that] the earthquake’s center was some 40 kilometers under the seabed of the Indian Ocean.
« One of the American researchers, Merrills Kinsey,[5]pointed out an important fact in the scientific report that he prepared after the last disaster, which is that the center of an earthquake that took place some 40 kilometers under the ocean floor could not have caused such destruction unless nuclear testing had been conducted close to the tectonic plates in these countries, or unless several days previously there had been [nuclear] activity that caused these plates to shift and collide – which constitutes a danger to all humanity, not only to the inhabitants of these countries… »[6]
[1]Palestinian Authority TV, December 31, 2005. To view the clip, visit http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=451.
[2]Al-Majd TV (Saudi Arabia/UAE), January 5, 2005. To view the clip, visit http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=462.
[3]Al-Majd TV (Saudi Arabia/UAE), December 31, 2004. To view the clip, visit http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=459.
[4]Al-Majd TV (Saudi Arabia/UAE), January 1, 2005. To view the clip, visit http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=452.
[5]The name was not identified by MEMRI.
[6]Al-Usbu’ (Egypt), January 1, 2005.
Voir encore:
A Critical Appraisal of Hans Jonas’s Idea of God after Auschwitz
Hans Hermann Henrix
I. On the truth of authentic and fictional texts
Among the Jewish contributions that echo the abysmal terror of Auschwitz and express the horror of the Shoah, many touching and authentic reports are found. To those who are driven by the question of how, in the face of the reality of Auschwitz, we can think and talk about God at all, texts exploring the existence and the perception of God in view of the events of the Shoah take on a definitive importance for their life and faith. One person’s heart and mind may have been indelibly branded by Elie Wiesel’s story in which the boy Pipel, during his protracted death at the gallows on the Auschwitz roll-call square, asks « Where is God? »1 Another may turn again to a text such as « Jossel Son of Jossel Rackower of Tarnopol Talks to God, » that « beautiful and true text, as true as only fiction can be, » presented as a document reporting on the final hours of resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto.2
A third person, fearing perhaps to be touched too closely by such fictional witnesses to the struggle for God and looking instead to the theoretical/intellectual debate, may turn to Emil Fackenheim’s « commanding voice of Auschwitz »3– a text that, by keeping an equilibrium between theodicy and anthropodicy, wants to transmit to the Jewish people the call issuing from Auschwitz for a new, eleventh commandment: namely, to protect and maintain the Jewish people and the Jewish faith, so as not to give Hitler a posthumous victory.
II. Hans Jonas – a Jewish voice in dark times
Does « The Idea of God After Auschwitz » by Hans Jonas (1903-1993)4 also belong among these texts? The author understands his contribution to be « a Jewish voice in dark times. » Not mincing words, he calls his lecture « a piece of undisguisedly speculative theology. » (p.7) It is theology in the garb of a theodicy, and theodicy not so much as a question but as an answer, an answer that seems to exonerate God from being responsible for the evil in the world, and thus for Auschwitz. Maybe it is this character of his contribution that has attracted considerable appreciation for Hans Jonas’s lecture within German-language Christian theology and philosophy5 – a kind of attention that Christian theology has only very hesitantly given to the other Jewish voices mentioned.6 What then is special about his « idea of God after Auschwitz »?
Anyone who approaches Hans Jonas’s thought by way of his works on the philosophy of nature and technology as well as on ethics7 would not in the first instance expect to find an interest in theology and the history of religion, since his philosophical work seems to breathe a pronounced scepticism in respect of the idea of God, which he considers in the context of modern nihilism. His ethics has a causal horizon that does not seem to have a place for God.8 And yet, the God-question has never let go of him. This became apparent to the German-speaking public when in his expression of thanks on receiving the Dr. Leopold Lucas Award from the Faculty of Protestant Theology at Tübingen University in 1984, he chose to speak on the « The Idea of God After Auschwitz, » a line of thought that he presented again later that year before a large audience at the Munich Assembly of German Catholics. During the final years of his life, he frequently revisited the tension between the nihilistic scepticism in his philosophical works on the one hand and his continued interest in the question of God on the other.9
The theme for his Tübingen speech of thanks « pressed » itself on him « irresistibly » because Jonas’s mother and the mother of the donor of the award had shared the fate of being murdered at Auschwitz. He chose the topic in « fear and trembling, » since it had existential depth: « I believe I owed it to those shadows, not to deny them some sort of answer to their long faded-away cries to a mute God » (7). The screams of the murdered souls still echo in the lament of the survivor, expressed in the phrase « a mute God. » Hans Jonas’s answer to the faded-away cries of the murdered drives a profoundly human and existential wedge into the philosophical/theological rock face. This context of real-life history must be kept in mind whenever his deliberations take on a speculative hue that might seem to be removed from everything human.
« What is it that Auschwitz has added to the measure of the fearsome and horrible misdeeds that human beings could perpetrate on other human beings, and ever have perpetrated? » (10) This is the question that Auschwitz has provoked in Hans Jonas. He answers it in an indirect manner, by explaining that traditional answers do not apply to the question of God any longer. The idea of the Shoah as something that God has visited on the disloyal people of the covenant is of no more help to him in explaining the Shoah than the idea, first formulated in the age of the Maccabees, of the witness of the suffering one, the martyr, who by his sacrifice and the giving of his life strengthens the promise of redemption by the coming Messiah. In accordance with this, even the « sanctifying of the name » (kiddush-hashem) in medieval martyr-piety is not longer of any use. « Auschwitz, devouring even the innocent children, knew nothing of all this…. Not a trace of human nobility was left to those who were destined to undergo the « final solution, » not a trace of it was recognizable in the figures of those ghostly skeletons who survived long enough to see the camp liberated » (12f.). For Jews, who consider this life the arena of God’s creation, revelation, and redemption, God is the guardian of this arena, the Lord of history. Thus Auschwitz, to the believing Jew, calls into question « the entire traditional idea of God. » It adds to the Jewish notion of history « a new dimension that has never existed before, something that the inherited theological categories cannot cope with » (14). This is the preface, the prologue to the credo of Hans Jonas, who does not want to give up the idea of God. He can also express the preliminary sketch of his credo, which despite everything still reckons with the existence of God, in another way:
« The notion of ‘the Lord of history’ will have to be given up » – this is the anticipated outcome of his credo (14). By employing the twin perspectives of theology and philosophy of religion, Jonas asks, as it were, under what conditions a history could be possible in which something like Auschwitz could happen. From his point of view, a God ruling history and interfering in its course of events « with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm » is not one of the conditions of possibility of a history containing the fact of the Shoah. Jonas sees the relationship of God to history in a different light. To think of God in view of Auschwitz means to him that we already have to think differently of God the Creator. This notion of God the Creator Jonas proceeds to delineate in a way « that makes it possible to articulate the experience of Auschwitz in a theological sense. »10 In order to develop the idea of God on a transcendental level, Hans Jonas turns to a « self-conceived myth. » (15)
III. Hans Jonas’s self-conceived myth and its theological significance
In the beginning, for unknowable reasons, the ground of being, or the divine, chose to give itself over to the chance and risk and endless variety of becoming. And wholly so: entering into the adventure of space and time, the deity held back nothing of itself – no uncommitted or unimpaired part remained to direct, correct, and ultimately guarantee the roundabout working out of its destiny in the creation. On this unconditional immanence the modern temper insists. It is its courage or despair, in any case its bitter honesty, to take our being-in-the-world seriously: to view the world as left to itself, its laws as brooking no interference, and the rigour of our belonging to it as not softened by an extramundane providence. Our myth demands the same for God’s being-in-the-world. Not, however, in the sense of a pantheistic immanence…. But rather, in order that the world might be, and be for itself, God renounced his own being, divesting himself of his deity – to receive it back from the Odyssey of time laden with the chance harvest of unforeseeable temporal experience; transfigured, or possibly even disfigured, by it. In such self-forfeiture of divine integrity for the sake of an unprejudiced becoming, no other foreknowledge can be admitted than that of possibilities which cosmic being offers in its own terms. To these conditions God committed his cause, effacing himself for the sake of the world. (15-17)
Jonas traces the fate of God’s effacing himself into the world through the course of time. He conceives of this course of time in an evolutionary manner. In the aeons before life begins to stir, the world does not yet harbour any danger to the God abandoning himself to it. This danger only begins to accrue when biological evolution becomes ever more multifarious and intensive: Eternity gathers strength, « filling little by little with the contents of self-affirmation, and for the first time now the awakening God can say that the creation is good » (18). Along with life, however, there arose death; mortality thus became the price to pay for a higher kind of existence, which out of the momentum of its evolutionary development produces the human being. The arrival of the human being also has its price, that is to say, God will have to pay the price now for his cause « possibly going wrong » (20), as the innocence of life now « has given way to the task of responsibility under the disjunction of good and evil. To the promise and risk of this agency, the divine cause, revealed at last, henceforth finds itself committed: and its issue trembles in the balance. The image of God … passes into the precarious trust of human beings, to be completed, saved, or spoiled by what they will do to themselves and the world. » (23) God’s fate is accomplished within a context of worrying and hopeful observing, accompanying, and tracking human activities, or rather, as Jonas himself puts it: Transcendence « from now on accompanies (human) actions with baited breath, hoping and wooing, rejoicing and sorrowing, with satisfaction and disappointment, and, as I would like to believe, making itself felt to humanity, without however intervening in the dynamics of that scene of mundane activities. » (23f.)
Hans Jonas’s myth has originality, rhetorical power, and speculative strength. His preferred means of expression is imagery. We at once begin to notice the wealth of consequences for the traditionally accepted notion of God arising from this scheme. As he himself admits, Jonas became aware of this only gradually. And he feels himself obliged to « link » his scheme « in a responsible way with the tradition of Jewish religious thought. » (24)
His myth speaks implicitly of a suffering God as well as a developing and a caring God. The biblical « idea of divine majesty » (26) only at first sight contradicts the notion of the suffering God, for the Hebrew Bible is certainly capable of describing quite eloquently the grief, remorse, and disappointment God experiences with regard to humans and in particular with regard to his chosen people. The thought of a becoming God may run counter to the idea emanating from classical Greek philosophy and introduced into the theological teaching of the attributes and its claim of the unchangeability of God; but as far as Jonas is concerned, it in inherent « in the sheer fact » that God « is affected by what happens in the world, and that ‘being affected’ means being altered, being in a changed situation. So that if in fact God has any kind of relationship to the world … then by virtue of this alone, the Eternal has become ‘temporized’ » (28f.). The notion of a caring God then defines more closely this « temporization » of God: « That God takes care of and cares for his creatures belongs among the most familiar tenets of Jewish faith » (31).11
Up to this point Hans Jonas considers his myth compatible with the Jewish theological tradition. He admits to incompatibility with it, though, at the point where he feels compelled to negate God’s omnipotence. « In our speculative venture, the most critical point is reached when we have to say: He is not an omnipotent God! For the sake of our image of God and our whole relationship to the divine, we cannot maintain the time-honored (medieval) doctrine of absolute, unlimited divine power » (33). His negation of divine omnipotence at this early stage, before coming to the problem of Auschwitz, Jonas derives from problems inherent in the concept of omnipotence. Thus he argues on the level of logical thought that omnipotence, as « absolute auto-potency, » in its solitude was in no position to exert power on anything. It was a power without resistance, and hence without power (33f.). Theologically, he formulates it as follows: « We can have divine omnipotence together with divine goodness only at the price of complete divine inscrutability…. More generally speaking, the three attributes … absolute goodness, absolute power, and understandability, stand in such a relationship that any combination of two of them excludes the third. »12
To deny the qualities of goodness and understandability to God would mean to destroy his divinity and to state an idea of God quite unacceptable « according to Jewish norms. » Therefore the notion of omnipotence, already seen to be dubious, must be relinquished.
Doing away with the omnipotence of God could however, Jonas believes, still be expressed theologically « within the continuity of the Jewish heritage, » for this limitation of divine power might be interpreted as « a concession made by God … which he could revoke whenever he felt like it. » (40) Here we have the idea of a self-chosen, retractable limitation of God’s power. This self-limitation of God, however, does not satisfy Jonas, for it would leave incomprehensible what has actually happened in history. Auschwitz would not have been confronted theologically; God would be conceived of without taking Auschwitz into account. For in Jonas’s view a freely chosen self-limitation of God with regard to his own power that could be revoked at any time would allow us « to expect that the good Lord might now and again break his self-imposed rule of exercising extreme restraint in imposing his power, and might intervene with a miraculous rescue. But no such miracle occurred; throughout the years of the Auschwitz slaughter, God remained silent. The miracles that occurred were the work of human beings alone: the acts of bravery of those individual, mostly nameless « righteous among the nations » who did not shrink from even the ultimate sacrifice to rescue others, to relieve their suffering, and even, if there was no alternative, to share in the fate of Israel. … But God remained silent. At this point I say: He did not interfere not because he did not wish to, but because he was not able to. » (41f.)
Jonas now can simultaneously think of Auschwitz and God only at the price of foregoing talk of a God with « a strong hand and an outstretched arm. » In view of Auschwitz, one must posit « the powerlessness of God » with regard to physical events. God, however, not only opts for this powerlessness in the course of history, but wills it into creation itself. Already creation out of nothing was by itself an act of self-restriction, « a self-limitation that allows for the existence and autonomy of a world. Creation itself was the act of an absolute sovereignty that for the sake of the existence of self-determined finiteness agreed no longer to be absolute. » (45)
Jonas finds a clue for his speculative venture of formulating his concept of God and the Creator in this manner in the « highly original and quite unorthodox speculations » of the Jewish Kabbalah surrounding the idea of zimzum. The divine zimzum as a form of « contraction, a retreat, a form of self-imposed moderation » is a precondition for the creation of the world. « In order to create space for the world to exist … the Eternal One had to withdraw into himself, thus creating emptiness, the void in which and from which he could create the world. Without this withdrawal into himself there could be nothing else outside of God. » (46)13
Jonas is able to support his myth of God renouncing his power with reference to the medieval idea of zimzum, while at the same time revising it. In zimzum, as the Kabbalah understands it, God retains his sovereignty vis-à-vis a creation that has become possible. In this context he remains a sovereign counterpart to the world; his contraction and withdrawal is only partial. Jonas, however, postulates a total contraction, a contraction not towards a void, but towards an unconditional immanence (cf. 16): Infinity in terms of its power empties itself « as a whole into finiteness » and in this way hands itself over to the latter. » (46) God retains nothing that remains untouched and immune (cf.16). This, however, raises the question: « Does this leave any room for a relationship to God? » Transcendence seems entirely steeped in and dissolved into immanence. Whether transcendence emerges once more from immanence is, paradoxically enough, up to the decision of human beings. For this is the sense in which Hans Jonas answers the question he himself has raised: « Having given himself wholly to the becoming world, God has no more to give, it is our turn now to give to him. » This is what humans do, whenever they take care that God must not regret having created the world. Hans Jonas is of the opinion that « this could well be the secret of the unknown « thirty-six righteous ones » who, according to Jewish teaching, the world will never be without, in order to safeguard its continued existence. » (47)14 Jonas counts on the possibility that further « righteous ones » have existed even « in our times, » and so in Auschwitz as well; in this context he remembers « the righteous among the nations » whom he has mentioned before, who in the abyss of the Shoah gave their lives for Israel. In the thirty-six righteous ones, a transcendence wholly hidden in immanence manifests itself as « holiness, » a holiness that « is capable of offsetting immeasurable guilt, of settling the debt run up by a whole generation, and of saving the peace of the invisible realm. »(48) Auschwitz, in Jonas’s thought, is the place where the notion of a God who has restricted himself fails; it is also the place where, from the ashes of this failed notion of God, God’s inscrutable transcendence appears in the form of holiness in the figures of the righteous one. Here his self-conceived myth is transformed into existential thought.
IV. An appraisal of Hans Jonas’s understanding of God
The myth Hans Jonas has created is a moving and challenging proposal. He weighs the traditional manner of speaking of God. In the face of the Shoah he wishes to speak of God. And he does this with pointed reference to the modern problematic of theodicy: any talk of God’s kindness and omnipotence is tested in the face of Auschwitz and in relation to the demand for understandability in God. The understandability of God is a guiding principle for Jonas. It is in the face of this criterion that talk of God has to prove itself. This is where it has its forensic element, based on reason.15 Although Jonas does not demand a thoroughgoing intelligibility, he nevertheless insists on the requirement « that we be able to understand God, not entirely of course, but to some extent…. If God, however, is to be understandable (in certain ways and to a certain extent) – and this is something we must adhere to – then his goodness must be compatible with the existence of evil, which it can only be if he is not omnipotent. » (38f.)
Jonas finds his principle of understandability quite centrally anchored in Jewish tradition: « a deus absconditus, a hidden God (not to speak of an absurd God), is a deeply un-Jewish notion. » (38) That this is somewhat controversial, however, within Jewish thought, is evident in any understanding of Jewish faith that orients itself to the testing of Abraham, i.e. God’s demand that he sacrifice his son Isaac. Thus Michael Wyschogrod can state that « Jewish belief … from the very beginning is a belief that God can do what is incomprehensible in human terms, » and with a view to Auschwitz he adds: « In our day and age this includes the belief that despite Auschwitz, God will fulfil his promise to redeem Israel and the world. Am I able to grasp how this is possible? No. »16
This Jewish position refuses to accept the modern variant of theodicy, since it does not consider valid a judging of God-talk before the tribunal of reason. Jonas, however, following his basic principle of understandability, opts for a discourse within the context of the modern problem of theodicy. For what he has to say, he is quite well able to find the appropriate Jewish words,17 and is capable also of transmitting his ideas in the traditional categories of Jewish thought, even though he describes them as « self-invented » (15), that is to say, developed in his own name and at his own risk. He is well aware of this. And by his own acknowledgment, he deviates « rather decisively from the most ancient Jewish teaching » (42).18 Does that mean, then, that he finds himself even more removed from Christian teaching? The Christian reader should not be too quick to jump to conclusions on this point. Rather, such a reader is left with an ambiguous impression of closeness and difference at the same time. One is tempted to associate the impression of closeness with what Hans Urs von Balthasar calls « formal Christology »19, whereas the difference may consist in his theodicy being a « Christology without Christ. »
As to associating Jonas’s myth with the term « formal Christology, » one finds a basis for this in his own writings. More than twenty years before his Tübingen word of thanks, Jonas had outlined his myth for the first time in a lecture on « Immortality and Our Contemporary Existence »20 and had submitted this idea to his teacher and colleague Rudolf Bultmann. In the enjoining correspondence with his colleague21, Jonas depicts the adventure of God of getting involved in the world and its history by using a Christian notion, and in conversing with his Christian partner he does not shy away from speaking of a « total incarnation » or of the « full risk » or « sacrifice of the incarnation. » He even tolerated his myth being labeled a « non-trinitarian myth of incarnation. » Knowing of such characterizations, Jonas twenty years later warned his Tübingen audience against getting the terminology of his own myth mixed up with the Christian connotations implied in it: « It [his myth] does not, like the Christian expression ‘the suffering God,’ speak of a unique act in which the Deity, at a certain moment in time and for the express purpose of the redemption of humanity, send part of itself into a certain situation characterized by suffering. Rather, in his view the almost incarnate relationship of God to the world had been a relationship full of suffering on the part of God « from creation onwards. » (25) Yet the fact that he had to warn of confusing them and had to make a clear distinction between them, points to the closeness of the two notions.
A further indication of the closeness of Jonas’s thought to Christian theology in this point, a closeness that of course implies neither congruence nor agreement, is seen in the fact that also on the Christian side, the classical idea of God has entered a critical stage, and that this crisis of the Christian theistic understanding of God is, above all, a crisis of the idea of divine power.22 Dogmatics, which had been shaped by Hellenistic philosophy, has rediscovered the « human » features in the biblical image of God, not least on the basis of contemporary experience, as with Hans Jonas (cf. 41f.). God’s predicates of compassion and the ability to experience pain are again increasingly emphasized in Christian theology. Such developments, however, lead to new interpretations of God’s omnipotence as the power of God’s love. Even before Hans Jonas spoke up, Jürgen Moltmann, quite significantly, interpreted the role of God’s power of creation in terms of the Jewish kabbalistic notion of zimzum, and postulated that a kind of self-limitation of the omnipotent and ubiquitous God had preceded the act of creation: « God creates … by means of and through withdrawing from creation. » The power of creation had to be considered « a self-humiliation of God towards his own impotence, » « a work of divine humility and equally a divine form of self-communion. When God acts as Creator, he acts upon himself. His actions are founded in his passion. »23 In the context of the theology of Creation, Jonas’s concept also forces Eberhard Jüngel to specify the notion of the original beginning « in terms of divine self-limitation. »24 Thus these Christian theologians and Hans Jonas are equally inspired by the kabbalistic idea of zimzum as a point of reference for interpreting the myth of creation.
Such closeness is not restricted to the idea of God’s power of creation and God the Creator alone. It also arises from considering the Christian understanding of divine power in relation to history. According to the myth established by Jonas, God attends human activities « with baited breath, hoping and wooing » (23), and for « the period of the world proceeding on its way, » i.e., as long as history lasts, he has « foregone all power of intervention in the physical course of mundane events. » God responds « to the impact of such mundane events on his own being … not by a show of ‘mighty hand and outstretched arm,’ … but by the mutely penetrating wooing of his unachieved aim » (42). There is a school of Christian theology that likewise interprets the attitude of the powerful God towards history and the actions of humans in terms analogous to this idea of God’s « wooing. » American process theology, which thinks of God, by virtue of his being a loving God, as sensitive, vulnerable, even dependent, aims to modify the idea of the omnipotence of God towards the notion that « God executes his power only in terms of his wooing humans and desiring to convince them, without being able to guarantee success. Thus God, in his love towards the world he created, runs a daring risk. »25
One need not agree with the controversial theological assumptions and conclusions of process theology to be able to understand from a Christian viewpoint the intervention of God and his power in history under the image of divine wooing. Johannes B. Brantschen, for instance, finds it possible, in connection with the New Testament parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15), to speak of God’s omnipotence as the coexistence of power and the powerlessness of love, and to interpret it in the following way: « This is the unprecedented event: God, the sovereign Lord of Heaven and Earth, begs for our love, but the almighty Father is powerless, as long as we humans do not answer the call of his obliging love from our very heart – for love without freedom is nothing but a piece of rigid iron. This powerlessness of love we experience today as the silence of God, or perhaps better, the discretion of God. God is discrete, at times even frighteningly discrete. … However, God in his discrete love has put enough light into his signs to be discovered by those who search for him. God takes us seriously. He is discrete, because he loves us. That is the divine delicacy. … God suffers as long as his love is not appreciated … This waiting is God’s way of experiencing pain. »26
Brantschen formulates his thoughts with special reference to the individual’s experience of illness and suffering, rather than vis-a-vis Auschwitz. That gives a somewhat parenetic and pastoral touch to his words and can lead to the aesthetic realm. Interestingly, Rudolf Bultmann asked Jonas the critical question of whether his myth might not remain « in the realm of aesthetics, » and whether his idea of God in the last resort might not be « an aesthetic concept. »27 In his reply, Hans Jonas insists that God’s committing his fate to human beings demands of the latter not an aesthetic, but an ethical response.28 And yet one has to ask Jonas whether his depiction of God’s response to what is happening in the world as an « intense but mute wooing » does not remain too firmly imbedded in the area of aesthetic judgement, which has the character not of a demand, but a request. « Time is the waiting of God, who begs for our love, » Simone Weil once said. Emmanuel Levinas, when confronted with this statement, at once put in a correction, by adding: « [Time is the waiting of God] who commands our love. »29 Instead of God’s wooing, his command; instead of an aesthetic « enticement, » an ethical summons before the tribunal of never ending responsibility.
Another question arises from the coordination of immanence and transcendence of God in Hans Jonas’s myth. If the divine basis of all existence retains no unaffected and immune « part » of itself, but entirely and unconditionally melts into immanence, then God’s transcendence not only becomes unknowable epistemologically, but also dissolves ontologically. The total immanence of transcendence, when taken with radical seriousness, is in the last resort a lonely kind of immanence, in which an intense but mute wooing of transcendence cannot take place any longer, nor can an uprising, an epiphany of transcendence be expected. Christian theology responds to the intellectual difficulties of Jonas’s myth with the Incarnation, understood on a Trinitarian basis: the Son enters history and the world, while the Father who sends out his Son in the Spirit continues to be God as a counterpart to the world.30 A formal Christology lacking the figure of Christ along the lines of Hans Jonas’s myth will hardly be able to solve the intellectual problem involved in the coordination of transcendence and immanence.31 Not all Jewish descendence or kenosis theology, though, is affected by this objection. The classical Jewish teaching about God’s bending down to humans refers to the God who is « seated on high » being enthroned in the heights » and « looks far down on the earth, and raises the poor from the dust » (cf. Psalm 113:6f.). Post-biblical tradition urges: « Wherever you find the greatness of the Holy One, praised be He, you will also find his humbleness. This is written in the Torah, is repeated in the words of the Prophets, and returns in the Writings for the third time » (bMeg 31a). The link between the descending God and the God of the heights is inseparable, so that transcendence does not dissolve into immanence.
The theoretical/intellectual problem in the myth of Hans Jonas of not being able to find one’s way out of the contradiction between total immanence and a nevertheless maintained transcendence, returns on the level of his more existentialist mode of expression. On the one hand, Jonas states regarding Auschwitz « no miraculous rescue happened; throughout the years of the fury at Auschwitz, God kept silent, » while on the other hand, he continues, « the miracles that occurred were the work of human beings alone: [they were] the acts of those individual, often unknown ‘righteous among the nations’ who did not shun even the ultimate sacrifice. » (41) Jonas now says of these righteous among the nations that « their hidden holiness is capable of making up for immeasurable guilt. » (48) Yet must not the holiness of the righteous in the context of Jonas’s mythological manner of speaking be understood as the salvation of God’s own cause, arising from the innermost essence of divine existence (cf. 23f.), as an echo of his intense but mute wooing, indeed, as the very manner of his being present, of his speaking? Looked at from the vantage point of Jonas’s own assumptions, would it not then be God himself speaking in the holiness of the righteous? And would we not then confront the tension between the absence of miracles and the simultaneous occurring of miracles, the tension between God being silent and yet speaking through the holiness of the righteous?
Finally, we will consider the contribution of Hans Jonas’s proposal to theodicy. His concept of God presents a powerless God, a defenseless God – a figure whom Christian theology has every reason to think about. In an exchange with E. Levinas about this question, Bishop Klaus Hemmerle spoke most impressively about God’s defenselessness, which in a process of self-denial reaches the point where he can do nothing but ask humans for their love. To this Levinas replied: « Such defenselessness in this situation, however, costs many suffering human lives. Can we speak in such a manner? We are not involved in a disputation on God’s capacity to sympathize with those who suffer. I don’t understand this notion of ‘defenselessness’ today, after Auschwitz. After what happened at Auschwitz, it sometimes seems to me to mean that the good Lord is asking for a kind of love that holds no element of promise. That is how I think of it: the meaning of Auschwitz is a form of suffering and of believing quite without any promise in return. That is to say: tout-à-fait gratuit. But then I say to myself: it costs too much – not to the good Lord, but to humankind. That is my critique, my lack of understanding with regard to the idea of defenselessness. This powerless kenosis has cost humanity all too dearly. »32
If Levinas’s objection is a Jewish critique of the Christian understanding of divine self-renunciation in Jesus Christ, it also touches Jonas’s own myth of God relinquishing himself towards immanence. Here as well, God has undergone a powerless kenosis which « costs humanity all too dearly. » The price of the truth of Jonas’s myth appears to be too high. The objection that God’s powerless kenosis costs human beings too much moves toward an understanding which – here going beyond Levinas – contains the promise of justice even to those who perished at Auschwitz. Suing for such justice means to make room for the « lamenting human complaint to God about the horrors occurring in his creation. » This is the whole point of the question of theodicy, as Johann Baptist Metz so insistently keeps asking it.33 And in this respect, Jonas’s scheme seems oppressive, and lacking in any form of promise. His call for God-talk to appear before the bar of understandability and be challenged by this-worldly history leads to forsaking the idea of God’s omnipotence and leaves a total absence of promise to those who have suffered in the past and to the dead of the Shoah.34
Do we really have to forsake talking about the omnipotence of God? Must we indeed renounce the yearning for a powerful God? Do those who at Auschwitz proved to be the righteous ones, the saints of the Shoah, tell us that what they longed for, namely, the omnipotence of God, must – according to another statement of Emmanuel Levinas – in the very yearning for it « remain apart, must appear holy as something worthy of desire – close, yet separate »? God’s omnipotence awakens our yearning for it, calls into being a move towards it, and yet at the very moment when that divine omnipotence is most urgently needed, it seems to yield place to the other person, to the neighbor, in a kind of responsibility that can go as far – and with the saints of the Shoah has indeed done so – as substituting oneself for the other person. This would seem to be the omnipotence of God remaining apart to the point of its very absence. It would seem to be an « intrigue » of the omnipotent God, entrusting my fellow human to me. This « intrigue » of God would be a kind of self-limitation that calls us into unlimited responsibility for our fellow human beings.35
The notion of God’s omnipotence and the yearning contained in it36 must pass the acid test of the ethical demand. This is where it finds its real meaning for each respective present; it will not let us avoid this test. Therein one could see the prospective meaning of any talk of God’s omnipotence; this could be its ethical content. At the same time, such talk contains a dimension of « going beyond » that is of particular relevance to those who cannot be reached by my responsible action in each present moment: to the suffering and the dead of history. Beyond its, so to speak, prospective meaning, the word of God’s omnipotence is a cry for God’s saving power, appealing to him to be effective and powerful for those who suffered and died. One could speak of a commemorating and an appealing meaning of talk of God’s omnipotence. Talking about God without appealing to him, and without any promise for the dead of history and the Shoah, is challenged by the question of theodicy, as it is pointedly formulated by Johann Baptist Metz. Such a challenge is also pertinent to Hans Jonas’s concept.
Conclusion
As insistently as we have sought a note of hope for the dead of Auschwitz in Hans Jonas’s concept of God, and as seriously as the question of the dissolution of God as the counterpart to humans (and thus the continuing possibility of prayer) must be directed to Jonas’s myth and its theological explication, it is equally appropriate to mention that Jonas accompanies his theoretical exposition with a very personal confession. This confession is clearly a move onto a different level of human expression, while still representing Hans Jonas the person. His concept breathes the pathos of candidness; he seeks understandability to be able to go on living. This seeking reflects the integrity and autonomy of Hans Jonas as a human being, one who at the same time can be quite humble. The answer he gives in his myth to the question of Job « is opposed to that put in the Book of Job, which looks to the omnipotence of the Creator God, while mine posits his renunciation of power. » To Jonas, both answers constitute « praise, » their countermovement being held together by what they have in common. Of his « poor word » of praise he would like to hope « that it would not be excluded from what Goethe in his ‘Vermächtnis altpersischen Glaubens’ (Legacy of Ancient Persian Belief) expresses as follows: ‘And all that stammers praise to the Supreme / in circle by circle there gathered does seem’ » (48f.). This is a personal avowal of faith in a God who is on high, who is a counterpart, and thus is praiseworthy. This must be pointed out so that the critique directed at Jonas’s intellectual scheme not be extended to a critique of Jonas as a person.
By creating his myth, Hans Jonas has echoed the faded screams of his mother, who was murdered at Auschwitz. From the standpoint of Auschwitz, he has directed his question to God, in a speculative gesture as it were. The appraisal of his urgent proposal attempted here follows him in this speculative gesture, on the level of thought and argumentation. What Jonas says about his own scheme is even more true of this appraisal: « All this is mere stammering » (48). Stammering it has been in its agreement with Jonas and in its questioning of him. The agreement revealed characteristics that Jonas’s scheme has in common with contemporary Christian theology. The questioning presented possible objections from outside as well as examining the inner coherence of Jonas’s understanding of God. Our appraisal did not see its task as that of submitting a definitive alternative scheme. Nor was it bent on attempting to make sense of the events of Auschwitz. Like Hans Jonas himself, our appraisal also does not wish to forsake the idea of God. Indeed, it does not wish to forsake the idea of a powerful God; it wants to acknowledge the yearning for an omnipotent God. This is a yearning that cannot avoid the acid test of ethical demands, and is challenged not to seek solace for oneself, but to live in hope for others.
Notes
E. Wiesel, Die Nacht zu begraben, Elischa, Eßlingen o. J., 93f.
So E. Levinas, Die Tora mehr zu lieben als Gott (1955), in: E. Levinas, Schwierige Freiheit. Versuch über das Judentum, Frankfurt a.M. 1992, 109-113, who presents the most impressive interpretation of this text. Other interpretations: U. Bohn, Thora in der Grenzsituation, in: P. von der Osten-Sacken (ed.), Treue zur Thora. FS Günther Harder, Berlin 1977, 124-134; P. Lenhardt/P. von der Osten-Sacken, Rabbi Akiva, Berlin 1987, 332ff; H. Luibl, Wenn der Herr sein Gesicht von den Betenden abwendet. Zu Zwi Kolitz: „Jossel Rackower spricht zu Gott », in: Orientierung 52 (1988) 5-8. The German translation of this text itself was published in: Almanach für Literatur und Theologie 2, Wuppertal 1986, 19-28; M. Stöhr (ed.), Erinnern – nicht vergessen, München 1979, 107-118; P. von der Osten-Sacken (ed.), Das Ostjudentum, Berlin 1981, 161-168; Judaica 39 (1983) 211-220. Compare the attempt of a strophic transliteration of R. Brandstaetter, in: K. Wolff (ed.), Hiob 1943. Ein Requiem für das Warschauer Getto, Berlin 1983, 274-276.
The Commanding Voice of Auschwitz (1970), in: E. L. Fackenheim, God’s Presence in History. Jewish Affirmations and Philosophical Reflections, New York 1970, 67-98. Fackenheim has repeated his position in further publications: Encounters between Judaism and Modern Philosophy, New York 1973; The Jewish Return to History, New York 1978; To Mend the World, New York 1982; The Jewish Bible after Auschwitz. A Re-reading, New York 1990; Jewish-Christian Relations after the Holocaust. Toward Post-Holocaust Theological Thought, Chicago 1996; Was ist Judentum? Eine Deutung für die Gegenwart, Berlin 1999. Literature on Fackenheim: B. Dupuy, Un theologien juif de l’Holocauste, Emil Fackenheim, in: Foi et Vie 73. No. 4 (1974) 11-21; E.Z. Charry, Jewish Holocaust Theology. An Assessment, in: JES 18 (1981) 128-139; S. Lubarsky, Ethics and Theodicy. Tensions in Emil Fackenheim’s Thought, in: Encounter 44 (1983) 59-72; M.J. Morgan, The Jewish Thought of Emil Fackenheim. A Reader, Detroit 1987; G. Niekamp, Christologie nach Auschwitz, Freiburg 1994, 131-135.
The text of H. Jonas was published: H. Jonas, Der Gottesbegriff nach Auschwitz. Eine jüdische Stimme (suhrkamp taschenbuch 1516), Frankfurt 1987 (the pages in the ongoing text of this manuscript are of this edition); other publications of the text in: O. Hofius (ed.), Reflexionen finsterer Zeit. Zwei Vorträge von Fritz Stern und Hans Jonas, Tübingen 1984, 61-86; Von Gott reden in Auschwitz?, in: Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken (ed.), Dem Leben trauen, weil Gott es mit uns lebt. 88. Deutscher Katholikentag vom 4. bis 8. Juli 1984 in München. Dokumentation, Paderborn 1984, 235-246 and: Hans Jonas, Philosophische Untersuchungen und metaphysische Vermutungen, Frankfurt 1992, 190-208. A french translation: Le Concept de Dieu après Auschwitz. Une voix juive. Suivi d’un essai de Catherine Chalier, Paris 1994.
E. Jüngel, Gottes ursprüngliches Anfangen als schöpferische Selbstbegrenzung. Ein Beitrag zum Gespräch mit Hans Jonas über den »Gottesbegriff nach Auschwitz«, in: H. Deuser u.a. (eds.), Gottes Zukunft -Zukunft der Welt (FS Jürgen Moltmann), München 1986, 265-275; W. Oelmüller, Hans Jonas. Mythos – Gnosis – Prinzip Verantwortung, in: StZ 113 (1988) 343-351; Marcus Braybrooke, Time to meet. Towards a deeper relationship between Jews and Christians, London/Philadelphia 1990, 123ff.; H. Kreß, Philosophische Theologie im Horizont des neuzeitlichen Nihilismus. Philosophie und Gottesgedanke bei Wilhelm Weischedel und Hans Jonas, in: ZThK 88 (1991), 101-120; H. Küng, Das Judentum, München/Zürich 1991 714ff; W. Oelmüller (ed.), Worüber man nicht schweigen kann. Neue Diskussionen zur Theodizeefrage, München 1992, passim; W. Groß/H.J. Kuschel, »Ich schaffe Finsternis und Unheil!« Ist Gott verantwortlich für das Übel?, Mainz 1992, 170-175; C. Thoma, Das Messiasprojekt. Theologie jüdisch-christlicher Begegnung, Augsburg 1994, 394ff; G. Schiwy, Abschied vom allmächtigen Gott, München 1995, 10ff, 36f.,76-85, 92-98, u.ö.; G. Greshake, Der dreieine Gott. Eine trinitarische Theologie, Freiburg 1997, 279ff.; K.-H. Menke, in: H. Wagner (ed.), Mit Gott streiten. Neue Zugänge zum Theodizee-Problem, Freiburg 1998, 125ff.; V. Lenzen, Jüdisches Leben und Sterben im Namen Gottes. Studien über die Heiligung des göttlichen Namens (Kiddusch-HaSchem), München/Zürich 2000 (2. Auflage), 140ff. u.a.
Cf. R. McAfee Brown, Elie Wiesel. Zeuge für die Menschheit, Freiburg 1990; W. Groß/ K.-J. Kuschel, ibidem (Footnote 5), 135-153; E. Schuster/R. Boschert-Kimmig (eds.), Trotzdem hoffen. Mit Johann Baptist Metz und Elie Wiesel im Gespräch, Mainz 1993; R. Boschki, Der Schrei. Gott und Mensch im Werk von Elie Wiesel, Mainz 1994; G. Langenhorst, Hiob unser Zeitgenosse. Die literarische Hiob-Rezeption im 20. Jahrhundert als theologische Herausforderung, Mainz 1994, passim.
H. Jonas, Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation, Frankfurt 1979, 21984. The main stations of his work are indicated by: Der Begriff der Gnosis, Göttingen 1930; Augustin und das paulinische Freiheitsproblem, Göttingen 1930, 21965; Gnosis und spätantiker Geist. Zwei Teile, Göttingen 1934, 21954 und 1954, 21993; The Phenomenon of Life: Toward a Philosophical Biology, New York 1963; Organismus und Freiheit. Ansätze zu einer philosophischen Biologie, Göttingen 1973; Technik, Medizin und Ethik. Zur Praxis des Prinzips Verantwortung, Frankfurt 1985. Compare the ongoing reception of Jonas’s work: W. Fasching, article „Jonas, Hans », in: Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexion, Band XV (1998), 723-733; C. Albert, article „Jonas, Hans », in: B. Lutz (ed.), Die großen Philosophen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Biographisches Lexikon, München 1999 and the informations of the Hans Jonas-Centre Berlin in: http://www.fu-berlin.de/~boehler/Jonas-Zentrum.
So H. Kreß, ibidem (Footnote 5), 109ff and similarly W. Lesch, Ethische Argumentation im jüdischen Kontext. Zum Verständnis von Ethik bei Emmanuel Levinas und Hans Jonas, in: FZPhTh 38 (1991) 443~69, 464. Compare the own statement of Jonas in: H. Koelbl, Jüdische Portraits. Photographien und Interviews, Frankfurt 1989, 120-123, 123.
Cf. the articles in: »Philosophische Untersuchungen« (footnote 4).
E. Jüngel, ibidem (footnote 5), 269.
Compare the statements of the Jewish traditional literature only in: P. Kuhn, Gottes Selbsterniedrigung in der Theologie der Rabbinen, München 1968; A.M. Goldberg, Untersuchungen über die Vorstellung der Schekhinah in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur, München 1972; P. Kuhn, Gottes Trauer und Klage in der rabbinischen Überlieferung, Leiden 1978; H. Ernst, Rabbinische Traditionen über Gottes Nähe und Gottes Leid, in: C. Thoma/M. Wyschogrod (eds.), Das Reden vom einen Gott bei Juden und Christen, Berlin 1984, 157-177, C. Thoma/ S. Lauer, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen. Erster und zweiter Teil, Bern 1986 and 1992; E.E. Urbach, The Sages. Their Concepts and Beliefs, Cambridge, Mass. 1987, 37-79; M.E. Lodahl, Shekhinah/Spirit. Divine Presence in Jewish and Christian Religion, New York/ Mahwah 1992; C. Thoma, Messiasprojekt (footnote 5), 78ff, 409ff u.ö.
In the Middle Ages the Jewish discussion of the possibility to mediate the three attributes of God reflected the mediation of the omnipotencce, goodness and providence; compare the study of B.S. Kogan, »Sorgt Gott sich wirklich?« – Saadja Gaon, Juda Halevi und Maimonides über das Problem des Bösen, in: H.H. Henrix (ed.), Unter dem Bogen des Bundes, Aachen 1981, 47-73. See as an example of the early Christian discussion of the issue only: Laktanz, Vom Zorne Gottes (Texte zur Forschung 4), Darmstadt 21971, 45ff.
Jonas follows to: G. Scholem, Die jüdische Mystik in ihren Hauptströmungen, Frankfurt/M. 1967, 285ff; idem, Über einige Begriffe des Judentums, Frankfurt 1970, 53-89 (= Schöpfung aus Nichts und Selbstbeschränkung Gottes). Cf. idem, Art. »Kabbalah«, in: Encyclopaedia Judaica XI (Jerusalem 41978), 489-653, 588-597 and M. Fritz, A Midrash: The Self-Limitation of God, in: JES 22 (1985) 703-714.
Cf. to this motif: G. Scholem, Die 36 verborgenen Gerechten in der jüdischen Tradition, in: idem., Judaica, Frankfurt 1968, 216-225; article »Lamed Vav Zaddikim«, in: Encyclopaedia Judaica X (Jerusalem 41978), 1367f.
C.-F. Geyer requires the „tribunal of reason » in his studies on the history of the discernable concept of theodicy, in: W. Oelmüller (ed.), Worüber man nicht schweigen kann (Footnote 5), 209-242. His position is critized by G. Neuhaus, Theodizee – Abbruch oder Anstoß des Glaubens?, Freiburg 1993, 144ff; cf. also the discussion in: H. Wagner (ed.), Mit Gott streiten. Neue Zugänge zum Theodizee-Problem (QD 169), Freiburg 1998.
M. Wyschogrod, Gott – ein Gott der Erlösung, in: M. Brocke/H. Jochum, ibidem (Footnote 2), 178-194, 185. See also V. Lenzen, ibidem (Footnote 5), 141.
So in reception of F. Rosenzweig and his reflection of the question in what sense his »Star of Redemption« is a Jewish book: Das neue Denken (1925), in: idem, Zweistromland (= Franz Rosenzweig, Der Mensch und sein Werk. Gesammelte Schriften III), Dordrecht 1984, 139-161,155.
A. Goldberg, Ist Gott allmächtig? Was die Rabbinen Hans Jonas antworten könnten, in: Judaica 47 (1991) 51-58 critized the absolute renunciation of the divine power; the rabbinical understanding of the concept of God’s power could accept a partial renunciation and preserved the possibility of the divine judgement. Interpretating Is. 45,7 and its daily recitation in the morning prayer Goldberg argued: »He, who claims that only the good can come from God, denies one of the few dogmas of Judaism» (56). The provocation of the biblical speech of God as the creator of the light and darkness is reflected by: W. Groß/ K.J. Kuschel, ibidem (Footnote 5) and M. Görg, Der un-heile Gott. Die Bibel im Bann der Gewalt, Düsseldorf 1995.
H.U. von Balthasar spoke on Israel as »a formal Christology« in his booklet on Buber: Einsame Zwiesprache. Martin Buber und das Christentum, Köln/ Olten 1958, 83. But he develops unsufficiently the affirmative dimension of such a caracterization; this is critized by: H.H. Henrix, »Israel ist seinem Wesen nach formale Christologie«. Die Bedeutung H.U. von Balthasars für F.-W. Marquardts Christologie, in: BThZ 9 (1993) 135-153.
H. Jonas, Zwischen Nichts und Ewigkeit. Drei Aufsätze zur Lehre vom Menschen. Göttingen 1963, 44-62, 55ff.
Ibidem, 63-72; Jonas’s using of the term of incarnation: 68.69.70.71.
The concept of omnipotence – long generations a firm component of the Christian teaching of the divine attributes – is marginalized in contemporary dogmatics; compare only: Mysterium Salutis. Volumes 1 to 5 and the supplement, Einsiedeln/ Zürich/ Köln 1965-1981; Lexikon der katholischen Dogmatik, Freiburg 1987; P. Eicher (ed.), Neue Summe Theologie. Bände 1 und 2, Düsseldorf 1992. But see also J. Auer, Gott – der Eine und Dreieine (Kleine Katholische Dogmatik II), Regensburg 1978, 422-431 and the discussion of O. John, Die Allmachtsprädikation in einer christlichen Gottesrede nach Auschwitz, in: E. Schillebeeckx (ed.), Mystik und Politik. Theologie im Ringen um Geschichte und Gesellschaft (FS Johann Baptist Metz), Mainz 1988, 202-218 and Th. Pröpper, article »Allmacht Gottes», in: 3LThK Bd. 1 (1993), 412-417.
J. Moltmann, Trinität und Reich Gottes. Zur Gotteslehre, München 1980, 124f.
E. Jüngel, ibidem (Footnote 5), 271. But compare the striking criticism of this reflection by H. Küng, ibidem (Footnote 5), 717ff.
So after H. Vorgrimler, Theologische Gotteslehre, Düsseldorf 1985, 150ff.
J.B. Brantschen, Die Macht und Ohnmacht der Liebe. Randglossen zum dogmatischen Satz: Gott ist veränderlich, in: FZPhTh 27 (1980) 224-246, 238f. Cf. also G. Neuhaus, ibidem (footnote 15), 264ff and H. Fronhofen, Ist der christliche Gott allmächtig?, in: StZ 117 (1992) 519-528, 523.
R. Bultmann, in: H. Jonas, Zwischen Nichts und Ewigkeit, ibidem (footnote 20), 66f
H. Jonas, ibidem, 70f.
So the manuscript of the dialogue on the Judaism and Christianity in the thinking of Franz Rosenzweig which was published in a shortened version: Judentum und Christentum nach Franz Rodsenzweig. Ein Gespräch, in: G. Fuchs/H.H. Henrix (eds.), Zeitgewinn. Messianisches Denken nach Franz Rosenzweig, Frankfurt 1987, 163-183.
Similarly the criticism of E. Jüngel, ibidem (Footnote 5), 272f and W. Oelmüller, Hans Jonas, ibidem (Footnote 5), 346.
Compare the literature according to the footnote 11 and: W. Orbach, The four Faces of God: Toward a Theology of Powerlessness, in: Judaism 32 (1983) 236-247; E. Levinas, Judaïsme et Kénose, in: Archivi di Filisofia LIII (1985) Nr.2-3 (Ebraismo. Ellenismo. Cristianesimo), 13-28 and R. Neudecker, Die vielen Gesichter des einen Gottes, München 1989, 69-105.
In. G. Fuchs/H.H. Henrix, ibidem, (footnote 29), 170.
J.B. Metz, Theologie als Theodizee?, in: W. Oelmüller (ed.), Theodizee – Gott vor Gericht?, München 1990, 103-118; Plädoyer für mehr Theodizee-Empfindlichkeit in der Theologie, in: W. Oelmüller (ed.), Worüber man nicht schweigen kann (footnote 5), 125-137; Die Rede von Gott angesichts der Leidensgeschichte der Welt, in: StZ 117 (1992) 311-320; Karl Rahners Ringen um die theologische Ehre des Menschen, in: StZ (1994) 383-393 (quotation there: 391); Religion und Politik auf dem Boden der Moderne, Frankfurt 1996; Gottesgedächtnis im Zeitalter kultureller Amnesie, in: Th. Faulhaber/B. Stubenrauch (eds.), Wenn Gott verloren geht. Die Zukunft des Glaubens in der säkularisierten Gesellschaft (QD 174), Freiburg 1998, 108-115.
Strangely enough the momentum of the lack of any form of promise to the victims of the history is faded out by G. Schiwy’s plea for the »discharge of the almighty» (Footnote 5).
See the idea of an »intrigue« of God – here in our context applied on the idea of the divine omnipotencce – by E. Levinas: Gott und die Philosophie, in: B. Casper (ed.), Gott nennen. Phänomenologische Zugänge, Freiburg/München 1981, 81-123, 104ff.
This in nearness to thoughts of H. Küng, ibidem (footnote 5), 731ff and O. John, ibidem (footnote 22).
Voir par ailleurs:
Nature’s God: An Interview with Nancey Murphy
The Christian century
December 27, 2005
Nancey Murphy, ordained in the Church of the Brethren, is Professor of Christian Philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena.
Science and theology have different aims and employ different language, but separating them into two non-interacting spheres ultimately fails. One common way of thinking about the relation of religion and science is to say that these are two different kinds of investigations that talk about different things: science tells us how the world is, religion tells us why it is that way or what it means. Or: science tells us about creation, but not about God. Does this division make sense?
Separating religion and science into two noninteracting spheres has been a common strategy since the 18th century to avoid conflict between religion and science. While religion (or theology) and science do have different aims and employ different sorts of language, this strategy ultimately fails. Consider, for example, the issue of human nature. Throughout much of their history Christians have understood humans dualistically — as a combination of two parts, body and soul. Developments in the cognitive neurosciences are increasingly making it clear that the brain performs all the functions once attributed to the soul, so the division breaks down. If theologians attempt to maintain the division by saying only things that are immune from scientific investigation (saying, for example, that when we speak of the soul we only mean to emphasize the value or meaning of human life), then theology becomes uninteresting and irrelevant. James Gustafson has suggested (in An Examined Faith) that theologians can 1) ignore scientific accounts of the world; 2) attack them on the basis of a more authoritative theological perspective; 3) interpret them from a theological perspective; or 4) revise their theology in light of scientific accounts — or some combination thereof.
Can you describe your own vocation in view of such options?
Attacking science is entirely inappropriate. However, much of what the general population regards as science is not science itself but scientists’ interpretations of science. It is very much the business of theologians to take issue with inappropriate interpretations. An obvious example is the claim that because science does not need to invoke God in its explanations this shows that God does not exist. A more subtle issue is the way science draws upon the limited human linguistic resources of the culture in which it develops. Theologians, because they are aware of a long history of cultural-linguistic developments, are sometimes in a position to point out limitations in scientists’ assumptions, limitations due to their limited conceptual resources. For example, modern physics assumes the self-sufficiency of matter, Christians (and people of other faiths) understand matter to be continuously dependent on the sustaining activity of God. In that perspective, which reflects a different concept of the nature of matter, scientific accounts of what happens are essentially incomplete, though valid within their own context. Both of the above examples are instances of theological reinterpretation of science. Evolutionary biology per se does not need God, but theologians interpret the evolutionary process as a manifestation of divine creativity. Physicists assume the conservation of matter and energy, but theologians interpret this regularity as a manifestation of God’s faithfulness. Theology does sometimes need to be revised in light of science. For example, cosmology, astronomy, geology and evolutionary biology have together called for rejecting the ancient idea of a Golden Age followed by a historic fall that changed the processes of nature. The options you offer fail to note that both science and theology intersect with philosophy. Because I am a philosopher myself, most of my work is centered here. In fact, the examination of conceptual resources for understanding human nature or for understanding matter and so on is precisely the philosopher’s job. Nearly all of the traditional concerns of philosophy have a bearing on theology and science. My work has focused on epistemology (how is theological knowledge like or different from scientific knowledge?), philosophy of language (do science and theology use the same kind of language?) and ethics (can science support ethical conclusions apart from a doctrine of God?).
Could you point to any aspect of modern science that has significantly altered your own way of thinking about God, the Christian story or the Christian life?
A current interest of mine is how a physicalist anthropology (that is, a nondualist account of human being) affects one’s understanding of spiritual practices. It has been fascinating for me to realize how much our relationship with God is a bodily affair: kneeling before God, for example, or being moved to tears. I have also been working on the question of how a physicalist anthropology might affect the whole of systematic theology.
As you’ve pointed out, science has made it extremely hard to posit something like the soul that exists independent of the body, or a mind that exists independent of physical processes in the brain. Some would say the dualistic view was never a biblical view to begin with, though it has long been part of Christian tradition. Do you agree?
I follow New Testament scholar James Dunn in holding that the biblical authors were not interested in cataloguing the metaphysical parts of a human being — body, soul, spirit, mind. Their interest was in relationships. The words that later Christians have translated with Greek philosophical terms and then understood as referring to parts of the self originally were used to designate aspects of human life. For example, spirit refers not to an immaterial something but to our capacity to be in relationship with God, to be moved by God’s Spirit. It is widely agreed that the Hebrew Bible presents a holistic account of human nature, somewhat akin to contemporary physicalism. The New Testament authors certainly knew various theories of human nature, including dualism, but it was not their purpose to teach about this issue.
Soul language is often invoked when people contemplate the status of a human embryo or fetus, or speak about someone with Alzheimer’s disease. It’s a way of saying: there is something here that goes beyond physical reality and deserves respect. Do you think human dignity can be preserved without invoking soul language or something similar? Much of Christian thinking about the preservation of human life takes a strange detour. We know that Jesus taught us to value all people. His ethic is unusual in the specific focus that he puts on two groups: our enemies and those we consider to be « least of these » (Matt. 25:46). So regarding the most vulnerable of people, we know as Christians that we need to protect them — and then we invoke the concept of the soul to explain why. But why not just say « because Jesus commands it »? There may have been a reason in the past to invoke the concept of soul for this purpose. In a culture that was not Christian but did accept dualism, soul language could be used apologetically to argue for protection of the vulnerable. The attempt to use it now for ethical arguments in the public arena simply adds another obstacle, since most secular folk do not believe we have souls (and some don’t even know what the word is supposed to mean).
« Because Jesus commands it » is very much an intra-Christian directive, and in that respect it might be said to constitute an obstacle in public argument. In general, do you think Christian ethics should understand itself in a community-oriented way, and not emphasize an « apologetic » dimension in making its claims?
I follow Stanley Hauerwas very closely here: we have to use the language and warrants specific to our own tradition in order to understand our own moral calling. But this does not mean that those outside the Christian tradition cannot understand what we say and see in our ideals a better way of life. One hundred and fifty years after Darwin, his theory of evolution remains contested in American Christianity and in American public life. How do you assess this fact, and how would you respond to parents or educators who want creationism also taught in their schools? When I first discovered that there are still Christians who reject evolutionary theory (having grown up in the Catholic school system, I did not encounter this as a child), I thought of it as a harmless expression of ignorance. More recently, though, I’ve come to see it as tragic. Vast numbers of young people are taught that evolution and Christianity can’t both be true. They get a good science education in college, recognize the truth of the evolutionary picture, and then believe that they have to reject their faith. Another change in perspective for me was to recognize that antievolutionism is not always a product of ignorance, but can be a response to the ways evolutionary theory is taken to sponsor various forms of immorality, social disintegration and so forth. The « immorality » that current antievolutionists have in mind is a rejection of « traditional » family values. I’m not familiar with the arguments, but I believe that they involve claiming that if evolutionary theory is true, then we are nothing but animals. In addressing parents who want creationism taught in the schools, I would first try to disabuse them of the idea that evolutionary theory is bad science, and then attempt the more subtle task of explaining the differences between a scientific account of origins and a theological account. On this point, the distinction between science and theology we discussed earlier is valid. Science tells us about series of physical events and the laws that explain why one thing happened rather than another. The doctrine of creation explains why the whole process takes place at all. In addition, it tells us what God’s purposes are for it and that it is essentially good.
The details in the two creation stories are clues about the proper ordering of human life, such as our relation to the other animals. The « intelligent design » movement, which points to organisms allegedly so complex they could not have arisen through the process of natural selection, has been part of the recent attack on Darwinism. How do you assess ID?
Does it offer a significant critique of evolutionary theory? Does it have any significant theological implications? The intelligent-design movement has the unfortunate effect of promoting the view that science and Christian teaching are incompatible. I leave it to the scientists to get into the details of why ID fails scientifically. The more significant failure is its misunderstanding of divine action. Christians have traditionally understood God to act in at least two ways: by performing special acts (special providence, signs, miracles) and by constantly upholding all natural processes. The ID movement assumes that Cod works only in the first way. Therefore, to show that God has acted, the ID movement believes one has to identify an event in which no natural process is involved. This is their point in trying to argue that particular events in the evolutionary process cannot be explained scientifically. The recent criticism of Darwin seems directed at some scientists’ inclination to extrapolate from the theory of evolution the conclusion that everything about humans must be shaped by an adaptive, evolutionary logic. Is such a criticism helpful? And is that part of what theology does — critique overblown claims that may emerge from science? Theologians certainly have a stake in criticizing overblown claims for evolutionary psychology, but so does everyone else. Sophisticated biologists recognize that culture is at least as significant as biology in shaping human behavior. The assumption that biology is the sole factor shaping human life is one instance of reductionism. I think of the sciences as forming a hierarchy moving from physics at the bottom, through chemistry, biology, psychology, to the social sciences. Each science studies more complex organizations of matter: atoms, molecules, biochemicals, cells, tissues, organisms, societies. One striking assumption of the modern era has been that all causation is bottom-up — that is, the behavior of the (simpler) parts entirely controls the behavior of the whole. This is true in some systems: a clock is designed so that its behavior is strictly governed by the behavior of its parts. But this is not true of most complex systems; in complex systems the whole has reciprocal effects on its parts. Humans, at the level of whole organisms, are certainly affected by their biological parts, including their inherited DNA, but the whole organism also has effects on the parts (for example, learning something changes neural connections). In addition, the societies that humans live in have effects on individuals and in turn on their biology. People with theological interests were in the forefront of the critiques of reductionism, but now scientists of all sorts and philosophers are also equally engaged.
Recent studies of the cosmos have led to the notion of an « anthropic principle » — the notion that earth seems to have been fine-tuned to produce human life. Tiny changes in the power of gravity, say, or in the weight of neutrons would have rendered life impossible. Is all this theologically significant? Does it add anything to the 18th-century « argument from design, » according to which, as the existence of a watch points to the existence of a watchmaker, the existence of a carefully designed world points to the existence of a designer God?
The apparent fine-tuning certainly raises the question of design, and it may turn out to be a more appropriate place to look for design than in the functionality of organisms and their parts (as in the design arguments of the 18th and 19th centuries).because it does not rely on finding gaps in the order of natural causes. The verdict is still out on whether it provides any evidence for God. An alternative explanation is provided by the various « multiverse » hypotheses. In an effort to explain the Big Bang, some cosmologists argue that our universe formed somewhat like a bubble out of a vast universe of similar bubbles. If this is the case, each universe could have different fundamental constants. And in that case, eventually there would be one or more universes with the right numbers for life. Although I have written about using the fine-tuning argument on behalf of a sort of design argument, I’m actually hoping that there is a multiverse. It seems so much more in keeping with our notions of God’s power and creativity to think that he would create all possible universes.
The existence of a multiverse with many universes would seem to raise to a yet higher dimension what we already sense is the lonely place humans have in the cosmos — and the sense that human life is a kind of random occurrence amid God’s extravagant creative activity. Do you have that response at all? Does that reality have theological implications for understanding God and God’s relation to humans?
There’s a different way to look at it. If we find out that it takes an entire multiverse in order to produce intelligent life, then all the more can we say with the psalmist, « What are humans beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them? » Of course, it is only from scripture that we know about our special place in God’s purposes; nature could never reveal this. What are your goals in teaching people preparing for ministry, who are not going to be professional theologians engaged with science? What do you most want seminarians to know about the relation of religion and science? Many of my students will be teachers and pastors in conservative Protestant churches, so I think it is important for them to know that they gain nothing and lose much by putting faith and science in opposition. I also want them to appreciate the way scientific knowledge amplifies our understanding of creation, and thereby our wonder and reverence for God. This point has to be qualified, of course, by recognizing that the natural world is a source of pain as welt as beauty. So reflections on nature must always include the problem of suffering. After the tsunami last year I read accounts reflecting on the likely responses to the event by adherents of different faiths. I was startled to see that all of the responses were anthropomorphic — that is, they asked, « Why would God do this to us? » None reflected an appreciation of the fact that plain old natural processes were the cause. A current project for me is the problem of suffering — both animal pain and human suffering at the hands of nature. The issue of cosmological fine-tuning is quite relevant to this problem. The laws of nature had to be almost exactly as they are for us to exist, which means that for us to exist nature also had to have the capacity to inflict damage on our bodies. I would also like seminarians to recognize the apologetic value of a faith that is well informed. It is common to expect pastors to be sophisticated with respect to literature and the arts. Scientific literacy is equally critical. The ability to provide a theological interpretation of science is as important for pastors as it is for academic theologians.
Are you saying that we couldn’t have the physical order we have in this world without also having the level of disorder we have (assuming the tsunami can be properly called « disorder »)? Is this another way of saying what the Enlightenment philosophers once maintained — that we live in « the best of all possible worlds »?
Granting that the tsunami was caused by proximate causes, not directly by God, isn’t God still somewhere behind the proximate causes? Yes, geologists can explain why a planet without this recycling of its crust could not support life as we know it. God does not (intentionally) cause tsunamis, but causes there to be a world in which the destruction of life is an unwanted but necessary by-product of the conditions that allow for human life. One of the problematic scripture texts for many people living in a world of different religions and world-views is John 14:6, in which Jesus says, « No one comes to the Father except through me. » How would you comment on that text? Does it have relevance to your professional work as a theologian who reflects on science? Most of the scholars I know who work on theology and science are either mainline Protestants or Catholics. I belong to the Church of the Brethren, one of the heirs of the Radical Reformation, which puts primary emphasis on doing God’s work in this world. In a book I wrote with George Ellis, an applied mathematician and Quaker activist (On the Moral Nature of the Universe), we began with the evidence for cosmological fine-tuning, and then argued that the best explanation for this fine-tuning is not a bare theism but rather a God understood in terms of the self-sacrifice of Jesus. This concept of God is needed to make sense of the fact that Jesus is « the way, the truth, and the life » in the sense that the salvation of the human race (in this eon) is dependent on taking up his all-inclusive, enemy-loving way of life. Only this response will stop the downward spiral of hatred, violence and oppression. The emphasis on salvation in this life is not to deny the afterlife, but it should turn our focus away from speculation on who does and does not « make it in » at the end.
Are you suggesting that the natural world in some way reflects, in a demonstrable way, Jesus’ self-giving character, which reflects God’s self-giving character? Do you mean this in a roughly analogous way?
It’s hard to know what, say, « enemy loving » looks like in the natural world. You could never get directly from the natural world to Jesus’ ethic, but in light of Jesus we can look at the natural world and see analogies. One analogy is seen in the view — held by most liberal theologians — that God’s action does not violate the laws of nature. Actually, because I don’t give « laws » the ontological status that many do, I would speak not of violating the laws of nature but of violating the nature of creatures. God creates beings with their own powers and propensities, and does not violate their basic natures in interacting with them. That restraint by God is analogous to Jesus’ self-emptying. Because that is how God relates to creatures, I would not take the story of God causing Balaam’s ass to speak (in Numbers 22) to have any historical content. It is a violation of the nature of a donkey to make it speak. To take another example: Opponents of Christianity sometimes use the violence of predation to argue either that there is no God or else that God has created an unnecessarily cruel world. Science can tell us, though, that predation is necessary in order for us to be here. Then we can join with the 16th-century Anabaptists in seeing the suffering of beasts of burden and animals of prey as a participation in the drama of God’s creation and redemption. This was called « the gospel of all creatures. »
If you were asked to preach a sermon and you could choose any biblical text, which would it be?
The first thing I would say is, « I don’t believe I have a calling to preach, so please ask someone else. » I have in fact hunted for texts that will support a theology-and-science sermon. What I have concluded is that what scripture has to say about the natural world is always said for the purpose of teaching right relations with God and with the community. Nature itself is not of much interest to the biblical writers. So sermons based on such texts may start with some reflections inspired by science, but if they are true to the text they are likely to end up speaking of the worship of God and of justice and of peace with our neighbors. For example, Isaiah writes: « For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited!): I am the Lord, and there is no other » (45:18). The text offers room to reflect scientifically on God’s fashioning (fine-tuning) of the universe so that it would be a place to be lived in rather than a formless waste. But the main point, which Isaiah goes on to declare, is this: « There is no other God besides me, a righteous God and savior; there is no one besides me; turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other »
jcdurbant 
[…] arrive à justifier l’injustifiable, faisant de Dieu le plus grand tueur de masse de l’histoire […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] le site internet Salon, de respect mutuel et de compassion au lendemain de l’une des plus tornades les plus dévastatrices de l’histoire des Etats-Unis […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] Et l’Éternel dit: J’exterminerai de la face de la terre l’homme que j’ai créé, depuis l’homme jusqu’au bétail, aux reptiles, et aux oiseaux du ciel; car je me repens de les avoir faits. Genèse 6: 7 […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] l’instar de nos théologiens ou de nos cinéastes, l’on s’escrime pour tenter de justifier l’injustifiable, à savoir la « cruauté d’un Dieu qui se venge sur les enfants égyptiens […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] l’instar de nos théologiens ou de nos cinéastes, l’on s’escrime pour tenter de justifier l’injustifiable, à savoir la « cruauté d’un Dieu qui se venge sur les enfants égyptiens […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] malgré même ce que dans sa quête du Dieu unique, la Bible du Déluge avait pu en dire […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] malgré même ce que dans sa quête du Dieu unique, la Bible du Déluge avait pu en dire […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] malgré même ce que dans sa quête du Dieu unique, la Bible du Déluge avait pu en dire […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] malgré même ce que dans sa quête du Dieu unique, la Bible du Déluge avait pu en dire […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] malgré même ce que dans sa quête du Dieu unique, la Bible du Déluge avait pu en dire […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] malgré même ce que dans sa quête du Dieu unique, la Bible du Déluge avait pu en dire […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] malgré même ce que dans sa quête du Dieu unique, la Bible du Déluge avait pu en dire […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] malgré même ce que dans sa quête du Dieu unique, la Bible du Déluge avait pu en dire […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] malgré même ce que dans sa quête du Dieu unique, la Bible du Déluge avait pu en dire […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] malgré même ce que dans sa quête du Dieu unique, la Bible du Déluge avait pu en dire […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] plus grand tueur de masse de l’histoire, Dieu vengeur tueur d’enfants, famille autrichienne censée fuir […]
J’aimeJ’aime
PREPARING FOR THE BIG ONE (City of light prepares for flood of the century with massive drill)
And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights …
Genesis 7: 12
And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: for then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Jesus (Matthew 24: 9-21)
An emergency evacuation test will take place in Paris and its suburbs either on March 16th, 2016 or some time between March 7th and 18th, 2016.
As a side note, a few years ago and in great secrecy at the time, the château de Vincennes was equipped to become the emergency Presidential Palace should the Head of State and his/her staff have to evacuate the Elysée Palace because of a flood. Everything has been ready ever since for an emergency transfer to Vincennes.
The site was chosen for its safe military infrastructure and architecture because, except for the medieval part recently opened to visitors and under the management of the Department of Culture, the château de Vincennes has mainly been known as a military building under the responsibility of the Department of Defense.
Here is a map showing the areas in central Paris that would be most affected by a major flood:
http://capgeo.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=1afb6e16cca648fd817e92d3d01ecdf2
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowTopic-g187147-i14-k9180155-o30-Paris_is_preparing_for_The_Big_One-Paris_Ile_de_France.html
J’aimeJ’aime
OROVILLE DAM CRISIS: LIBERALS JOIN CHRISTIANS IN BLAMING IT ON THEIR STATE’S DEFYING OF GOD/NATURE’S LAWS (A new generation of Californians — without much memory of floods or what unirrigated California was like before its aqueducts — had the luxury to envision the state’s existing water projects in a radically new light: as environmental errors)
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth… And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Genesis 6: 5-7
KEEP UNDERMINING GOD’S LAWS, THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING !!!
Mary Blunt
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/02/13/what-caused-the-oroville-dam-crisis-some-christians-online-blame-ca-liberals-for-defying-god/
The dam was part of the larger work of a brilliant earlier generation of California planners and lawmakers. Given that two-thirds of the state wished to live where one third of the rain and snow fell, they foresaw a vast system of water storage and transference that would remake the face of a growing California by putting people, industry and farms where water was not. The 19th and 20th century dams have saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars of property from perennial spring flooding. The dam at Oroville helps to control the flows of the Feather, Yuba, and, ultimately, the Sacramento rivers, allowing millions of Californians in these former flood basins to live without fear of deluges. Many Californians have come of age taking dams like Oroville for granted, assuming that flooding was something of ancient family lore — and that the manmade storage reservoirs surrounding their growing cities were “natural” lakes. The water projects created cheap and clean hydroelectric power. (At one point, California enjoyed one of the least expensive electric delivery systems in the United States.) In addition, dams like Oroville ensured that empty desert acreage on California’s dry west side of the Central Valley could be irrigated. The result was the rise of the richest farming belt in the world. Complex transfers of water also helped fuel spectacular growth in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin. Their present populations often do not fully appreciate that their dry hillsides and Mediterranean climates could never have supported such urban growth without the can-do vision of a prior generation of hydrological engineers. Finally, besides, flood control, hydroelectric power and irrigation, California dams created over 1,300 reservoirs that presently provide the state with unmatched mountain recreational and sporting opportunities — often for the poor and middle classes who cannot afford to visit expensive coastal tourist retreats.
Yet the California Water Project and federal Central Valley Project have been comatose for a half-century — despite the recent drought. Environmental lawsuits and redirection of critical state funding stalled final-phase construction, scheduled expansion and maintenance. Necessary improvements to Oroville Dam, like reinforced concrete spillways, were never finished. Nor were planned auxiliary dams on nearby rivers built to relieve the pressure on Oroville. A new generation of Californians — without much memory of floods or what unirrigated California was like before its aqueducts — had the luxury to envision the state’s existing water projects in a radically new light: as environmental errors. To partially correct these mistakes some proposed diverting storage water for fish restoration and re-creating of wild rivers to flow uninterrupted into San Francisco Bay. Indeed, pressures mounted to tear down rather than build dams. The state — whose basket of income, sales and gas taxes is among the highest in the country — gradually shifted its priorities from the building and expansion of dams, reservoirs, aqueducts, bridges and highways to redistributionist social welfare programs, state employee pensions and an enormous penal archipelago. California currently hosts a third of the nation’s welfare recipients. Over one in five Californians lives below the poverty line. One in four Californians was not born in the United States. These social transformations pose enormous political challenges and demand that infrastructure and schools grow commensurately to meet soaring populations. Instead, California is eating its seed corn. State lawmakers spend their time obsessing over minutia: a prohibition against free grocery bags and rules against disturbing bobcats. When they do turn their attention to development, they tend to pick projects that serve urban rather than rural populations — for example, that boondoggle of a bullet train whose costs keep climbing even as the project falls years behind schedule. The crisis at Oroville is a third act in the state’s history: One majestic generation built great dams, a second enjoyed them while they aged, and a third fiddles as they now erode.
Victor Davis Hanson
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/the-oroville-dam-disaster-is-yet-another-example-of-californias-decline/#more-9856
J’aimeJ’aime