In the small article he wrote about his interpretation of the Original Sin, I remember he said that he didn't like at all the idea of the Original Sin in the sense of a Fall. In his view, that interpretation led to a diminished glorification of God, as it makes appear the Creator as being 'unfortunate' in his creational activity. I agree with Teilhard's point of vue. He is also the first, in my knowledge, to express that kind of intelligent criticism on this interpretation of the Fall.

Jan, the way I understand the Fall is that it is an attempt to account for the beginnings of moral evil and its consequences to the human race. We certainly do see that moral evil exists, and we know it produces consequences the ripple out to others. So it must have started somewhere at some time -- unless one believes moral evil is somehow intrinsic to the properties of matter or non-human animals, which seems an absurd idea to me. How do you account for the beginnings of moral evil without positing a Fall of some kind?

I don't understand how human wrongdoing reflects on the glory of the Creator or how the Fall implies a misfortune in God's creational activity. The traditional account holds that the creation of the human was accomplished before the Fall -- at least sufficiently so that the first humans would have been conscious of the divine prerogatives and in possession of a level of freedom to co-operate or not. The Fall implies the latter, reflecting more on the human than the divine.

For a more comprehensive and detailed reflection on modern theologians' views of the Original Sin, see Jim Arraj's masterful essay.
- http://www.innerexplorations.c...theomortext/evol.htm

- - -

This whole issue of the Fall and Original Sin is an area where I think Teilhard was rather weak, on the whole. It's too bad his works were suppressed and not openly discussed in the theological community during his lifetime. Who knows how the dialogues would have gone.

[qb]
Jan, the way I understand the Fall is that it is an attempt to account for the beginnings of moral evil and its consequences to the human race. We certainly do see that moral evil exists, and we know it produces consequences the ripple out to others. So it must have started somewhere at some time -- unless one believes moral evil is somehow intrinsic to the properties of matter or non-human animals, which seems an absurd idea to me. How do you account for the beginnings of moral evil without positing a Fall of some kind?

I don't understand how human wrongdoing reflects on the glory of the Creator or how the Fall implies a misfortune in God's creational activity. The traditional account holds that the creation of the human was accomplished before the Fall -- at least sufficiently so that the first humans would have been conscious of the divine prerogatives and in possession of a level of freedom to co-operate or not. The Fall implies the latter, reflecting more on the human than the divine.

For a more comprehensive and detailed reflection on modern theologians' views of the Original Sin, see Jim Arraj's masterful essay.
- http://www.innerexplorations.c...theomortext/evol.htm

- - -

This whole issue of the Fall and Original Sin is an area where I think Teilhard was rather weak, on the whole. It's too bad his works were suppressed and not openly discussed in the theological community during his lifetime. Who knows how the dialogues would have gone. [/qb]

Phil, no offense, but I think it is always dangerous to underestimate the ideas and thoughts of a genius, like Teilhard was, especially in an area where his ideas didn't change noticeably over time, despite the very vigorous opposition he got regarding his position towards the Original Sin. Don't forget his position towards this meant the start of enormous moral suffering from his side: he had to abandon his teaching at the 'Institut Catholique' at Paris, he wasn't allowed to publish his dearest ideas which he knew were of tremendous value for humankind, he was exiled to China... I don't think that an open theological discussion on this particular topic would have made him change his mind about it; neither do I think his thinking was rather weak on this issue (was his thinking ever 'weak'? I wonder). I admit though that his thinking on this issue, as on other ones, was very innovating - although at the same time respectful of Christian Tradition - and in this perspective, it is only natural that it encounters a lot of opposition. Especially on such a fundamental topic as Sin and Original Sin. I read some substantial parts of Jim Arraj's article on Original Sin, but I have to admit I don't share your enthousiasm about it. In a crucial part of this article he argues: 'These kinds of evolutionary explanation that find evil built into the universe go againsta Christian view of the goodness of creation'. Do they really? I don't think so. But what is equally important: he clearly hasn't understood what Teilhard had to tell about this issue. Let me recall something that Teilhard - in a dense recapitulation of his cosmic view which he wrote at the end of his life - had to say about evil, and at the same time moral evil (moral evil, in his eyes, was a special kind of the evil that is universally present, and that only becomes possible with reflexive kinds of consciousness). He namely simply says that, in a Universe that is fundamentally - in a structural way - evolutionary by nature, it is INEVITABLE that evil occurs. It is the inevitable part of the positive movement of evolution towards higher levels of consciousness, towards higher organisations of the 'Weltstoff', and, finally, towards more love. Otherwise, there simply wouldn't be any true evolution; the concept itself of evolution would become meaningless. What can one object against that? Very little, I think. In fact, when one really thinks well about it, nothing at all. Of course, Teilhard doesn't deny free will, not in the least. He is fully aware that moral evil is a worse kind of evil than evil in its many, non moral forms. But, nevertheless, it 'naturally' fits in a world that is fundamentally evolutionary by nature. So, the true question becomes, one that Teilhard also mentions with the same amount of words I do here, in his 'Messe sur le Monde': only God knows why He can't create otherwise than through Evolution. The goodness of God's Creation is not at stake. Evolution, with respect to the question of evil, precisely means that it is possible, at every single moment, to find a way out of the omnipresent evil (that is inevitable only on the 'global' scale of Evolution considered as a whole) especially so for a creature that was given a free will.

Jan, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I understand what you're saying as I have read Teilhard and his commentators as well. Saying that Teilhard is a "genius," however, and that this somehow absolves him of criticism for some of his positions is untenable, however (not that you put it exactly like that, of course. Still . . . ). I would contend that theologians like Jim Arraj are every bit as bright and learned as was Teilhard. Read around his site a bit and you'll see what I mean.

He is fully aware that moral evil is a worse kind of evil than evil in its many, non moral forms. But, nevertheless, it 'naturally' fits in a world that is fundamentally evolutionary by nature.

I've never followed this point, except that he's saying that since humans possess free will, then it's likely they'll misuse it and this is just the way things go -- part of the evolutionary process. How or why this point should invalidate a beginning of such misuse -- a Fall, as it were -- and the inevitable consequences (Original Sin) is what I don't get. Maybe you can explain that?

Evolution, with respect to the question of evil, precisely means that it is possible, at every single moment, to find a way out of the omnipresent evil (that is inevitable only on the 'global' scale of Evolution considered as a whole) especially so for a creature that was given a free will.

It also means that it is possible that the creature NOT find escape, and be crunched under by the evil. This was clearly not God's intent, and so what you rightly describe as the possible good here ought to be seen against the evil that does, in fact, win the day in some lives. Traditionally, these polarities were understood in terms of a fallen/redeemed world. If one does away with the "fallen" pare and posits instead an evolutionary/redeemed world, then:
a. evil becomes viewed as part and parcel of the evolutionary process, and that reflects back on God, who created a universe with evil as an intrinsic part of its unfolding;
or:
b. evil doesn't really exist; that's just a subjective interpretation we give to unfortunate events -- even those that are a consequence of human choice.

Both views are incompatible with traditional Christian doctrine, and so it's not surprising that Teilhard caught some heat for those positions.

Have I misunderstood something here?

It's interesting how Original Sin gets to the very core of things. There is no kiddy end of the pool for this subject. It's not like explaining the concept of God to a child where one might portray him as a kindly grandfather and only later deal with more complex issues such as theodicy. If one jumps into Original Sin, one jumps immediately into immense depths and complications

When looking at the nature of nature, and the nature of evolution, at the very least I think one must concede that we were meant to suffer because suffering is unavoidable. It's built into the system. And if this is so then, being finite beings, we're going to have adverse psychological reactions to that which can and will equate to what we call evil. Yes, we can say that we have some free choice in this, and we surely do, but we did not set up the parameters of the system. Imagine setting up a daycare center full of loving, kind caretakers, fluffy stuffed animals and all the toys and healthy food one needed. Now imagine a daycare facility with shards of broken glass strewn around, junk food instead of Gerbers, caretakers who spanked the children randomly, and a daycare facility itself that is perched on the edge of a cliff and could drop off at any moment. The latter is our world. The former is what we wish it was and strive hard to make it. But because this is a world that inherently sets out the conditions that set us at each other's throats, I see no way in which we can share all of the blame of sin. And certainly the idea of eternal damnation for sin is most absurd to me given these conditions. That would be the ultimate expression of blaming the victim. And I do see life as a bit of a meat grinder by nature. Yes, it can be pleasant�sometimes or only for some. But in large it is full of pain, misery and hatred.

From my perspective, the one good thing we can say about suffering is that I think only with suffering can there be meaning. If there is a god then it seems likely that he thought discovering meaning was far more important than avoiding the tens of millions of grisly murders and acts of violence, the Count Vlads, and the various Auschwitzes throughout time. Whatever the case may be, we exist and there is either meaning to existence or there is not�and even meaningless is a type of meaning. But we also need to recognize in this soup of misery and destruction called life that we have the simply astounding ability to reach toward the light, to reach toward true love and true compassion, and to trulyl transcend (if only for chosen moments) the misery of it all. If that shows a connection to a being called "God" then so be it. I'll buy that. But notions of an all-loving God are inherently problematic given the world we live in. I've never seen Original Sin as a successful way to avoid that problem. It seems like we have to be content with either a more morally neutral assessment of God or else we need to see our suffering as belonging to us. And I'll grant that some of that is cause by our bad choices, and that to suggest that there even can be bad or immoral choices is a profound statement with broad and deep implications, including and Ultimate Moral Agent (aka "God").

People have been thinking about this problem for thousands of years and I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer. All I can do for myself is to try to take natural theology where it will. Others rely on revealed theology and that has its place as well. And, frankly, I think evolution is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion of Original Sin. The means of becoming creatures isn't important. More important is the question of consciousness itself and conscious choice and the difference, if any, between a snake eating a mouse and a human being murdering another human being. Is the latter "evil" simply because we're aware of it, that we have made some choice in the realm of consciousness? If so, what exactly is consciousness and why should that change the nature of action�in nature?

Here's an interesting short essay by Rolheiser that touches on the rationale for Original Sin. I also think it's quite a good insight into popular culture�and perhaps he reveals how the concept of Original Sin hasn't fallen out of favor in our culture, even if it goes under other names. And I would posit that this is true especially of secular culture. It's interesting how so much of society, even when explicitely rejecting religion, always finds its way back. Michael Crichton's superb essay, Environmentalism as Religion is a great example of this. And a number of sage philosophers has noted that if we don't explicitly practice religion in our lives it's going to sneak into other areas of our lives and often to bad effect.

Permission to be Unhappy

quote:

But, when happiness is promised this easily, someone, Poniewozik says, has to say that it's okay to feel unhappy and not be smiling all the time.

Formerly, the church did that. It had religious symbols that reminded us daily that we lived in a broken world, amid fractured dreams, that life was a struggle, that happiness was hard to come by, that we were always vulnerable, that death posed a constant threat. Religion made us aware that humanity had fallen from grace, that we were wretches in need of God's help, that we were here as pilgrims on earth with no real home, that real joy had to be waited for, that the sublime came only after long sublimation, and that we lived in "a valley of tears" within which we shouldn't over-expect.

Much of this sounds pretty morbid however in a culture where, precisely, there is the promise of easy happiness, of easy smiles, and of having the full symphony here and now, without any sublimation. How, when happiness is seemingly so easy, can we sing a song that proclaims that divine sweetness lies in the feeling that God can save "wretches" like us? No wonder we resist words like sin, unworthiness, purgatory, death.

Built into our experience of existence is mystery; a mystery that no amount of scientific rationalism can ever quell�it can only make the mystery all the more compelling. Why such order? How such order? Etc. And we are also faced with similar questions. Why so much pain? Why so much disorder? In the end, I think if we are to rationalize any kind of theological belief, we have to acknowledge something along the lines of what Jesus said: Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into His glory? To me, on earth, this moment, that means a sort of law of karma�but with a twist. Rather than just good things spawning more good things it means that bad or just downright painful things are directly tied to the creation of good things. That means that acts of evil will ultimately lead to acts of goodness. That doesn't necessarily mean that evil acts are actually good acts but it could mean that the two, good and evil, are tied together in such a way that good will always be the ultimate product�or byproduct. That might mean that, despite ourselves, we're getting better all the time. [Just like Sir Paul, not St. Paul, said (although he may have said it as well)]. That would mean that our reality on earth, our existence in the universe in time and space, is perhaps less about preparation as in the "earth as school where we pass or fail" sense and more about taking part in a gestation or birthing process. And rather than a fall, we're like dough being leavened. It's a matter of putting something in that can apparently not be put in in any other way. If it could then would anyone in their right mind conceive of this kind of painful reality?

I think there are legitimate at least philosophical alternatives to either Original Sin or Original Meaningless (which I suppose is a universe that "just happens", is going nowhere, means nothing, and was not a product of intelligence). And surely our understanding of evolution drives much of the thinking regarding alternatives. Evolution is slow, apparently quite haphazard, unpredictable, and necessarily painful. We must consume other life forms just to exist! And "us or them" reality is built into existence. I wonder what sort of theology we would have now if evolution was known as well five thousand years ago as it is now. Would revealed theology be much different because we were capable of understanding a much more complex message than man being created on a specific day?

Anyway, just general musings intended to help lubricate the discussion.

We're all trying to grow. We're all trying to be somebody, even if the definition of "being somebody" has become quite subtle and enlightened. We're equipped by Creation with this desire, and evolution is, in part, the means. Who knows what the world was at the point of singularity (or near singularity�I'm confused about this point), at the moment just prior to the Big Bang (if, indeed, a "moment" before the Big Bang makes any sense). But it does seem that even as the universe itself is winding down like a big watch whose initial winding was good for at least 15 billion years, other parts of the universe (like us) are gaining in complexity. Does one balance the other? Does one necessitate the other via some deep quantum principle (as in, the more of one thing then the less of the other thing)? If so, what exactly was the ontological nature of the nascent Big Bang? Was it a blank slate with only potential? Was all the potential built in only needing to be realized? Was it perfect harmony and symmetry that was broken and thus is not only analogous to The Fall but is the fall? But then that would make it impossible for there to be a perfect Creator. Is a perfect one necessary? Do we perhaps misuse or misunderstand the term, "perfect"?

It seems that either suffering is immoral or it isn't (even though we say that some kinds of suffering is and other kinds isn't). And if suffering is immoral then this surely reflects on a Creator. But if we call suffering just part of perfection, then where does the concept of evil fit in? And is it just a concept? Is it real? And yet we can't ignore the existence of truly kind acts that are not connected with self-interest. As difficult as it may be for most of us to be like that, to transcend the nitty gritty ugly aspects of evolutionary dog-eat-dog reality, we do witness that such a thing is possible. Is this a glimpse into a parallel reality? Is it a reality that is the ethereal ying to our material yang? Does one necessitate the other? Are they like two poles of the same magnet?

Hoi Phil; well, I am back from my weekend and now I have some time to answer. Let's see.

[qb] Jan, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I understand what you're saying as I have read Teilhard and his commentators as well. Saying that Teilhard is a "genius," however, and that this somehow absolves him of criticism for some of his positions is untenable, however (not that you put it exactly like that, of course. Still . . . ). I would contend that theologians like Jim Arraj are every bit as bright and learned as was Teilhard. Read around his site a bit and you'll see what I mean.[/qb]
Well, I certainly never suggested that Teilhard being a genius absolves him from criticism, may it be negative or positive criticsm, so that some 'less pure' interpretation by you of my words. As to the brightness of Jim Arraj, I don't know, but as I said, what I read from him convinced me that he didn't really grasp the core thought of Teilhard about evolution and evil. Which, I don't hide it, makes it rather difficult to believe for me that he is as bright as Teilhard was.

[qb]He is fully aware that moral evil is a worse kind of evil than evil in its many, non moral forms. But, nevertheless, it 'naturally' fits in a world that is fundamentally evolutionary by nature.

I've never followed this point, except that he's saying that since humans possess free will, then it's likely they'll misuse it and this is just the way things go -- part of the evolutionary process.[/qb]
Too bad you don't follow this point, Phil. It is precisely a very strong point in Teilhards position towards evil/Original Sin/the Fall, to place it in the extremely coherent context of his cosmic vision on evolution. In more traditional christian views on evil and moral evil, such context lacks, and as a consequence makes the whole question very much less understandable. In this view, moral evil kind of relates to 'nonmoral' evil as thinking relates to non reflexive consciousness.
[qb]How or why this point should invalidate a beginning of such misuse -- a Fall, as it were -- and the inevitable consequences (Original Sin) is what I don't get. Maybe you can explain that?
[/qb]
Well, as far as I know, Teilhard never says there is NOT some kind of 'beginning' of misuse of the free will. He doesn't confine it to a first couple of humans (Adam and Eve) though, neither does he describe such 'a Fall' as something that made God expulse Adam and Eve from paradise. For Teilhard (as for me) Paradise is not something that was 'behind' us in Time, but on the contrary situated 'ahead' of us; although it may be said that Paradise surpasses Space and Time and can be reached only through the transformation of Death.

[qb]Evolution, with respect to the question of evil, precisely means that it is possible, at every single moment, to find a way out of the omnipresent evil (that is inevitable only on the 'global' scale of Evolution considered as a whole) especially so for a creature that was given a free will.
[QB]It also means that it is possible that the creature NOT find escape, and be crunched under by the evil. This was clearly not God's intent, and so what you rightly describe as the possible good here ought to be seen against the evil that does, in fact, win the day in some lives.[/qb]
Well, apparently, some people seem to choose for (moral) evil. Of course this is not God's intent, but it INEVITABLY happens.
[qb]Traditionally, these polarities were understood in terms of a fallen/redeemed world. If one does away with the "fallen" pare and posits instead an evolutionary/redeemed world, then:
a. evil becomes viewed as part and parcel of the evolutionary process, and that reflects back on God, who created a universe with evil as an intrinsic part of its unfolding;
or:
b. evil doesn't really exist; that's just a subjective interpretation we give to unfortunate events -- even those that are a consequence of human choice.

Both views are incompatible with traditional Christian doctrine, and so it's not surprising that Teilhard caught some heat for those positions.[/qb]
Obviously, Teilhard doesn't adhere to interpretation b, which of course is incompatible with traditional Christian doctrine. He however says, indeed, something close to interpretation a: evolution, by the nature of its process, tries a lot of paths, and in such 'trial', evil - also moral evil - INEVITABLY occurs. Teilhard however doesn't say that this 'reflects back on God, who created a universe with evil as an intrinsic part of its unfolding'. Of course, there remains a part of 'mystery' here, which Teilhard acknowledged and that I also mentioned in my previous post. Only God Himself knows why - when He decided to create the universe - He had to do it by choosing 'the path of Evoultion', in which, indeed, evil inevitably happens. But does this really reflect on God? And if so, in what way? God is Love, there is only a principle of goodness in God. Saying so, means that God's real intention is that ALL people succeed in unifying themselves with Him, and such so even 'through' evil. God, in the process of Creation, does everything He can to make all people unify with Him. It seems rather very likely though (to say the least) that some of us refuse His Love. There is indeed the human free will that makes this possible. And one is allowed to think that there is some 'extra source' of evil, traditionally referred to be 'the Devil', that further compromises the rate of success of people joining Him through His Love. Not everything in this question of evil/Original Sin/the Fall is a 100 procent clear to me. But I don't think there is even ONE human person to which it is completely transparent. But the Teilhardian way of seeing this question is the only fully coherent approach I see, that equally accounts for the 'real world' as such, as for God's intent with His Creation.

Well, as far as I know, Teilhard never says there is NOT some kind of 'beginning' of misuse of the free will.

Right. Surely there must have been.

He doesn't confine it to a first couple of humans (Adam and Eve) though,

I'm assuming, here, that you know that the overwhelming majority of Christian theologians take Adam and Eve as mythical representations for the "first humans." So this is really a "straw man" argument you (Teilhard) advance, as no one is really saying what you are distancing yourself from.

neither does he describe such 'a Fall' as something that made God expulse Adam and Eve from paradise. For Teilhard (as for me) Paradise is not something that was 'behind' us in Time, but on the contrary situated 'ahead' of us; although it may be said that Paradise surpasses Space and Time and can be reached only through the transformation of Death.

Again, I'm sure you must know that that language need not be interpreted fundamentalistically. Catholic theologians posit that what was lost was "natural beatitude," which is not the same as the "supernatural beatitude" of heaven, which does indeed lie ahead.

Well, apparently, some people seem to choose for (moral) evil. Of course this is not God's intent, but it INEVITABLY happens.

That's little more than a truism, however, unless by inevitably you mean to connote "necessarily," which would bring you smack-dab to the a. vs. b. dilemma I posited above. Orthodox Christian teaching has always maintained that sin -- even the Fall -- was not necessary. So I would hope that your use of INEVITABLY doesn't imply NECESSARILY.

evolution, by the nature of its process, tries a lot of paths, and in such 'trial', evil - also moral evil - INEVITABLY occurs.

INEVITABLY = NECESSARILY?

I really doubt it. In which case your continuing to shout this word at us makes little sense and does nothing to contradict the original doctrine.

It seems rather very likely though (to say the least) that some of us refuse His Love. There is indeed the human free will that makes this possible. And one is allowed to think that there is some 'extra source' of evil, traditionally referred to be 'the Devil', that further compromises the rate of success of people joining Him through His Love.

Right, just so long as we don't say this of our first parents and that their sin brought consequences to the whole race, or use language like the Fall and Original Sin! (teasing - really ).

Jan, are you aware of the incongruence in yours and Teilhard's position? It almost seems like your arguments against the traditional doctrines are positing straw man positions that no one really believes outside of biblical fundamentalism.

I'll post below a response to an article recommended to me on another forum, where we were discussing Original Sin. I think your position is similar to that of the author I'm rebutting.

Below is a link to an article on evolution and original sin published in America magazine (sponsored by the Jesuits). My rebuttal follows.
- http://www.americamagazine.org...tID=1205&issueID=350

-------

Original sin has been defined as the need for salvation by Christ that is universal to all human beings and acquired through natural generation.

OK, but that's a very superficial definition and understanding, imo, with no reference to the Fall, but to "generation" instead. In fact, there was nothing in the article that seemed to take the doctrine of the Fall seriously. Instead, the usual datae of evolution and biology were considered normative for theology on this matter.

The doctrine of original sin is the theory developed by Western Christianity, from Paul through Augustine and beyond, to cope with the problem of evil. This tradition looks to the Book of Genesis, Chapters 1 to 3, for an explanation of creation, seeing there a story of how God�s good work was corrupted by human sin. This explanation sufficed for over 1,000 years. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, however, it was undermined by geology�s discovery of deep time, followed by the Darwinian revolution in biology

From Paul to Darwin is 1,000 years? And the Jews before Paul didn't believe in the Fall and dire consequences for the human race? Note, too, that Darwin's theory somehow sets the standard for accountability, the presumption being that the doctrine simply could not stand in an evolutionary universe.

As a result, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican�s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had to admit in 1985 that �[t]he inability to understand �original sin� and to make it understandable is really one of the most difficult problems of present-day theology and pastoral ministry�

This is taken to be an admission of some kind by Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) that the doctrine is no longer intelligible, when, in fact, it seems to be recognizing a need for better pedagogy.

We all sin because we have all inherited�from the very first living things on earth�a powerful tendency to act selfishly, no matter the cost to others. Free will enables us to override this tendency, but only sporadically and with great effort; we more readily opt for self. This tendency in all of us is what our tradition calls �the stain of original sin.� It is not the result of a �Fall� in our prehistory, since we were never more selfless than we are now.

Well, if he says so . . .

But note very carefully how he places the ability to overcome natural selfishness in the will per se -- presumably the "natural will" -- and how the will is simply unable to sustain loving or just actions. This is true, but what is missing from the account is any notion that such might not have been the case with our first parents by virtue of the unimpeded flow of "natural grace" available to them because of their undefiled relationship with God. But, then, to acknowledge this possibility would go against the evolutionary, emergent perspective of the author, which trumps everything, and provides the standard to which traditional doctrine must give an accounting. Recognizing that it is precisely grace (natural and supernatural) which DOEs provide the will with the power to sutain loving and just actions, is it really too far a stretch to assert that something like this could have been more readily available to our human ancestors as well? I don't see why not!

God�s decision to create a material world was inescapably a decision to create breakable, mortal beings. Moreover, one of the iron laws of God�s universe is Darwinian natural selection, which enforces selfish behavior on the part of all living things as the price of survival and evolutionary progress�even though, as a practical certainty, this selfishness eventually entails sin on the part of moral creatures. Life cannot evolve any other way.

Note now that Darwin's theory is, here, considered a "law," which reinforces selfishness (not necessarily so) and therefore "explains" moral evil.

Instead, we have imagined that God had a choice, that the world could have been different. But ours is not just the best of all possible worlds; it is the only possible world

Like I said, if he says so . . .

Finally . . .

The long and short of it for me is that I find no conflict between affirming the evolutionary perspective described by scientists and the traditional doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin. None whatsoever! Furthermore, I find nothing in Teilhard or any other process-oriented writer that demonstrates a logical or other kind of incompatibility between evolution and the traditional doctrines.

So I wonder where/why this insistence that the traditional doctrine just cannot stand in the face of evolution really comes from? Either one doesn't understand what the doctrine is saying or one ends up having to affirm a universe in which moral evil is not just inevitable (which only says it's likely that someone, at some time, will misuse their freedom -- a point that doesn't invalidate the traditional doctrines, btw), but is somehow intrinsic to creation itself (which absolutely DOES reflect back on God).

Well, Phil, let me try again to explain to you where the insistence that the traditional doctrine just cannot stand in the face of evolution. Because, despite what you are saying, I neither defend straw man's positions, neither is there any incongruence between my position and Teilhard's position on this issue. I hope that this time indeed, light will shine in the darkness. I will use very little words, that however, should be thought well about, otherwise, the risk is to never understand this point of evil. Not that Teilhard insisted that much on evil in his vision, but his position on the issue was nevertheless daring and a real breakthrough into thinking about the issue. So, Phil, open up your mind and consider carefully this time.
The big problem with the traditional doctrine, is that it is uncapable of conciliate (is this a right English word; well the meaning should be obvious: it means something like 'think together in a coherent way') evil and moral evil with the absolute goodness of God. Unless, of course, one reduces evil to some kind of 'Fall', and to moral evil by man and mankind. Then it seems to become a simple issue: evil is simply due to man and mankind, who didn't make a good use of their free will. So, that leaves the goodness of God unharmed and every traditional theologician feels releaved... But such is not reality. Evil exists in all kinds of forms: from simple defects in physical entities (crystals, but also 'living' cells), over perverse tendencies in nature, living beings and humans up to the worst kinds of moral evil. I noticed you avoided this point in my argumentation (namely the point of showing that evil is really omnipresent and that there is a real gradation in all kinds of evil), but it is of no use: I immediately noticed it (excuse for being si unmodest, but you should really take it seriously that I am kind of smart). Teilhard gives a brief overview of different kinds of evil in an appendix that he later added to his 'Le Ph�nom�ne Humain'. I completely agree with this overview, and I think everyone with a really open and free mind will agree with him . So what does . Well, sadly, the answer is: nothing, it can't explain . It is surely against this kind of uncomprehension and 'trying to hide the big problem' attitude that Teilhard was reacting in his vision on evil/Original Sin/the Fall. His big contribution to the debate is that he shows very convincingly that evil is indeed unevitable (I didn't 'shout' this time, noticed? - stupid 'net etiquette' by the way) part of the evolutionary process. So the big problem of evil even - that is: the classical, in traditional doctrine, unsolved problem that evil seems uncompatible with the goodness of God - ceases to exist. Of course, evil itself doesn't cease to exist, on the contrary. Well, I couldn't say it in clearer words where 'the insistence that the traditional doctrine - concerning the question of evil just cannot stand in face of evolution' comes from. Now, as to the question if this kind of vision on evil reflects back on God. You say it DOES reflect back on God. No need to shout here, Phil ;-) . If it really does, which in my eyes it doesn't (only, like Teilhard, I have no immediate answer as to why God, when he decides to create, does have to - or at least, everything appears that way - do this by the way of Evolution, in which evil unevitably appears), that indeed would be disastrous for the christian way of considering God and His absolute goodness. No straw man's position here, Phil, quite the contrary I would say. One last word: you seem to ignore that even a very great 'evolutionist' like Teilhard carefully examined the possibility that an original couple, Adam and Eve, would have really, historically existed. Well, I don't. His conclusion was (if I remember well), that this would be very unlikely, although there is no scientifical evidence that it would have been impossible. If there is any incongruence between Teilhard and me in this matter, I think you will have a very hard time in finding one, a real one I mean.

Jan, I'm well aware of the distinction between moral and other kinds of evil, but I really don't consider "natural evils" to be such. As you note, they are part and parcel of the evolutionary process, and so so are of a different kind than moral evil, which ensues from the misuse of human freedom. This has been the chief concern of the doctrine of the Fall along with how the consequences of such rippled into other areas.

One last word: you seem to ignore that even a very great 'evolutionist' like Teilhard carefully examined the possibility that an original couple, Adam and Eve, would have really, historically existed. Well, I don't. . .

Not that you know anything for sure, of course. But, fwiw, I don't argue for a strict monogenic view of human origins either, but it seems that mitochondrial evidence links us all to one female ancestor. Nevertheless, as I already noted in a post above, Adam and Eve need not be viewed as literal characters; the represent our human ancestors. The story of the Fall is simply a way to affirm that moral evil came into the world from the misuse by our first parents of their freedom. As you do not deny this (nor could you if you wanted to -- as neither of us knows when this really happened, and neither did Teilhard), I don't follow what the fuss is all about -- unless you hear the Church teaching that the Fall is the cause of ALL evil, which would be ridiculous. So, in the end, you cannot really deny what the doctrine of the Fall affirms, nor that the consequences of the misuse of such freedom have rippled down through history, weakening human nature and contributing to social injustice (i.e. Original Sin).

Jan, keep in mind that no one really knows what the consciousness of the first true humans was like. The presumption by evolutionists seems to be that it was barely different from that of apes, but that need not have been the case.

Whatever . . . this never goes anywhere. I've tried dialoguing with Teilhardians and process-oriented philosophers and theologians on this point but it's totally hopeless, imo. I don't really see the conflict between the traditional Judeo-Christian doctrines and what evolutionary science and philosophy proposes -- unless one misunderstands the Fall the be saying something about all evil instead of moral evil.

So let's talk about some other aspects of Teilhard's writings.

Jan, I'm well aware of the distinction between moral and other kinds of evil...

I wonder if either of you have a good (as in succinct! ) link that explains this; that is, the various kinds of evil according to Catholic doctrine.

I wonder if we can call evil �over-growth�. Analogous to the cells in our own bodies, we consider growth to be good and life-sustaining. New cells replace old, worn-out ones. But too much growth is cancer in which growth itself is harmful to life. And yet life itself would not exist without growth.

Evolution is a process of growth, of life trying to spread itself out�often at the expense of other life. Human societies mirror this. We�re all trying to grow and in doing so we run into each another. Think about how we order our sense of justice: It�s just fine for someone to acquire things in an ordered, �fair� way. But to pull out a gun and rob someone is considered evil. Both are ways to acquire more stuff. Whenever we make fast leaps of growth (which does sort of resemble cancerous growth) we are uneasy, even if (as with Hillary�s cattle futures or Exxon�s oil profits) these ways are legal.

Recently I was reading this little biography of Etty Hillesum who is pretty much the lesser known Anne Frank. I think it�s interesting that what we consider saintly, even Christ-like behavior, is to adopt an orientation that runs counter to normal evolutionary motives. One gives one�s self up to others. One is more interested in helping others than in furthering one�s own cause. The greatest thing to do is not to hoard but to literally give up one�s life for another.

quote:

Etty Hillesum wrote in her diary: "Sometimes when I stand in some corner of the camp, my feet planted on earth, my eyes raised towards heaven, tears run down my face, tears of deep emotion and gratitude." Does this sound like a passage from a young girl's summer camp diary? Well, the camp she speaks of is a Nazi death camp.

If God creates a universe and he is omniscient, perfect, and all that, there�s just no way for Him to avoid some responsibility for evil. We do, as human beings, have great freedom, but isn�t it interesting how we tend to think of those who do evil acts as acting from a lower state of awareness or consciousness? I think this is obviously so in many cases. People in such cases are acting highly instinctual and are going about the evolutionary game of life where it is eat or be eaten. This is not evil when a lion does this to a gazelle, but we consider it evil when a human does it to another human.

But it seems to me, particularly because of the existence of evolution and its ubiquity as a backdrop for most of what we do, and that higher awareness, consciousness or just plain development brings about what we would call goodness, we are a species coming into knowledge of good and evil as if it was a property that emerges only out of awareness. We, ourselves, mirror the same thing in our system of justice. Someone may be deemed not criminally responsible because they are mentally disabled or such. And if God is the highest form of consciousness possible, he would be expected to have a very fine-tuned idea about morality. And thus when you create a world in which beings evolve to an eventual state where they start attaching ideas of morality to their actions, what you have is some strange mix of God�s complicity, because he created these conditions, our complicity, because we are free beings, and no complicity because evil is sort of just a made-up concept. I noted in the accounts of Etty Hillesum how she bore no malice toward her Nazi captors (and eventual executioners). It seems that there�s a perspective to the whole good/evil argument that most of us are lacking but that clearly exists.

In the meantime it seems that we�re (in rough outlines, certainly not trying to deny the complexity of the much nuanced approach that Phil gives) concerned with trying to keep our concept of God pure by putting all responsibility for evil on ourselves or, in turn, trying to sully God unnecessarily by turning too much responsibility back on him. Or doing some trickery with evolution in which the explanation is so murky or convoluted that responsibility seems to fall on no one.

And yet, when I attempt to pray I am very much affected by my concept of good and evil. I am finding right now (and always have, really) a barrier. It�s difficult for me to pray to someone who is, at least in my eyes, such a cold, ruthless bastard at times. And this is no doubt why we tend to over-simplify the good/evil question. It just becomes unreasonably difficult to have any kind of faith in reality itself if we don�t think that reality is good. But I think we should remember that we are limited creatures who are only now (in the long view of things) coming into a knowledge of good and evil. So, I think, we over simplify because our capacity to understand is limited. Our perspective is limited. But I think we ask some very good questions.

Why evolution? Why this slow process? Why not just jump straight to heaven? Why all this horrible pain and suffering? And my mind says, �Maybe god isn�t perfect. Maybe he makes mistakes. Maybe he has a sense of humor. Maybe all his acts aren�t what we would define as �good� by our standards down here on earth.� But this is just me talking. There�s no way I can envision a perfectly good god. Not with conditions such as they are. But I can envision faintly now, but I think it�s getting stronger, what it means to be good. And having such a thing put in one�s view then one�s only reasonable choice, no matter the nature of god, is to do the good thing. It is so odd, and seemingly hopelessly paradoxical, to consider THAT there could be a bad thing, a bad way, a bad orientation toward life, toward a universe purportedly made (seemingly necessarily so) by a Good Being, but there clearly is. Why would a Good Being offer two ways? We might assume that this does not make God evil for offering the two ways, for how could an inherently evil being create good? But we are left to wonder about his methods�and rightly so. We, after all, are the ones suffering.

The nature of our existence itself is due to the evolutionary process, a process that is inherently slow, messy, painful, and that consumes other creatures. Why is it called �evil� when we simply speed up this process to acquire power and resources�a process that normal evolution is simply plodding along doing all the time and which seems to be its very raison d�etre? And why do so many of the actions and orientations that we call �good� seemingly run counter the very process of evolution itself? If God chose evolution to be the path then wouldn�t more evolution in sort of small bursts be good? Instead, it�s considered bad. It�s considered bad if to spread my power and influence I take another man�s wife, his property, etc. But from the aspect of evolution, I�d be doing my genes a favor. I�d have gathered up more resources at my command.

It�s all a very strange, strange thing. And to such a clever artist I can sometimes willingly pray.

I think a lot of evil in this world is in response to fear. And there is so bloody much in this world to be afraid of that I don�t think one can write off evil as something man is completely responsible for. We really are put in a most difficult situation. We all have some really terrifying stuff facing us from time to time, or much of the time. And yet we�re supposed to somehow, in the midst of this storm, not only deal with life but do so morally and compassionately. Well, as they say, when you�re up to your ass in alligators it can be difficult to remember that your initial purpose was to drain the swamp.

But kudos to those who remain moral, who remain patience, compassionate, understanding and calm in the face of adversity. People like this show that it can be done (and I sure as hell ain�t one of them), that there is no reason to lash out at others, nor does this response to our troubles help. But I�m almost hesitant to call at least some behaviors by humans immoral. I mean, it just seems the deck can be so stacked up against them.

God, we need a little (a lot, really) of TLC down here and less talk about faith. We need action, not promises. In my humble, may-lightning-not-strike-me, opinion, of course.

[No�the above was not inspired by going toe-to-toe with a gaggle of mad shoppers at Wal-mart. ]

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
[qb] Jan, I'm well aware of the distinction between moral and other kinds of evil...

I wonder if either of you have a good (as in succinct! ) link that explains this; that is, the various kinds of evil according to Catholic doctrine. [/qb]

Brad et al, see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm for a good start. This was the state of understanding in 1910 or so, and is what Teilhard would have been exposed to. Note the distinctions between moral and other kinds of evil, especially "physical evil," which one might attribute in large part to the evolutionary process.

This page takes a more evangelical Christian approach, viewing "physical evil" teleologically -- i.e., as means by which God forms, chastises, etc. That could go along with an evolutionary perspective, of course. Again, the distinction from moral evil is highligted.

The Fall is about the beginning of moral evil, and Original Sin refers to the condition into which we are born as a consequence of moral evil. As Teilhard makes a distinction between moral and physical/natural evils, it is perplexing that he has no use for the Fall and Original Sin as there must have been a beginning to moral evil and the consequences of such are plain as day to see.