Mary Zeiss Strange, USA Today, and the Problem of Evil
Follow the link above to the Editorial / Opinion section of USA Today and find an article that attempts to refute the idea that religious language has meaning. The overt subtitle of the article is, "Let's quit asking why the almighty sends hurricanes, tsunamis and earthquakes and instead focus on questions that actually have meaning."
Strange makes the somewhat strange assertion that theodicies are not genuine attempts to find the truth to the problem of evil (sure, some of them are not), but that to attempt to reconcile the existence of God and evil / suffering is merely a pathway to power.
She lists out in a sentence or two what she believes that some of the world's religions postulate as theodicies: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism, and then calls these "simple-minded." Obviously Strange has created an unfair straw-man in order to make those with religious faith look stupid. Apparently Strange is not interested in reading the hundreds of volumes and articles written on this subject by conservative Christians alone. The desire to understand this issue is far from being simple-minded.
She also makes the common error of grouping all conservative Christians under the leadership of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. It would be like me saying that Mary Strange must be a supporter of Bush since she is an American citizen (she obviously is not and I doubt she would appreciate the assertion that she is).
This article attempts to operate on a faulty premise, that religious language is meaningless. Though the case is often made that this premise is true, most philophers of religion and certainly the majority of Americans wholeheartedly disagree. To say that God and evil / suffering can logically co-exist is at the very least a meaningful assertion.
For a detailed anlysis on the Problem of Evil, read Dr. Steve Cowan's article, "Peering Through A Glass Darkly."
Strange makes the somewhat strange assertion that theodicies are not genuine attempts to find the truth to the problem of evil (sure, some of them are not), but that to attempt to reconcile the existence of God and evil / suffering is merely a pathway to power.
She lists out in a sentence or two what she believes that some of the world's religions postulate as theodicies: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism, and then calls these "simple-minded." Obviously Strange has created an unfair straw-man in order to make those with religious faith look stupid. Apparently Strange is not interested in reading the hundreds of volumes and articles written on this subject by conservative Christians alone. The desire to understand this issue is far from being simple-minded.
She also makes the common error of grouping all conservative Christians under the leadership of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. It would be like me saying that Mary Strange must be a supporter of Bush since she is an American citizen (she obviously is not and I doubt she would appreciate the assertion that she is).
This article attempts to operate on a faulty premise, that religious language is meaningless. Though the case is often made that this premise is true, most philophers of religion and certainly the majority of Americans wholeheartedly disagree. To say that God and evil / suffering can logically co-exist is at the very least a meaningful assertion.
For a detailed anlysis on the Problem of Evil, read Dr. Steve Cowan's article, "Peering Through A Glass Darkly."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home