Dear Theophilus, 

In the last letter, I pointed out some major criticisms that I have of science and what I would like to do in this letter is to finish off that topic and address some of the other points you discuss.

We have seen from history that science does not change fundamental issues in human life, questions such as violence, terror, enslavement and so on. Its main claim to fame is the technological innovations that have accompanied science and this is an undisputed fact. Science has also expanded our knowledge of the universe that we live in. We see that our cosmos is much older and much larger than we had ever imagined in the past. This has unavoidably impacted on the way we see the world, ourselves and on the meaning of creation. This is in accord with what I wrote in the last letter that there are benefits that science offers to humanity.

There is a fatal flaw within the heart of science and that flaw is language. The problem of language is a metaphysical one. In a nutshell, we can pose the following question: can language make sense without God? What is the significance of talking about truth and falsehood if there is no God and in the end, nothing really matters? The question of God will always haunt science and this is a question which will never go away, unless we simply choose to ignore it, as many scientists do. Even if we determine all the laws of the ways all things function and operate, we will still have the question before us: who made the laws? Why do the laws operate? Scientists avoid these questions by saying they are nonsensical and then ignore them. This is unfortunate because they are important questions and scientists will have to confront them and accept them. One possible way to answer this is to say that the laws were simply always there. But this is a supreme act of faith with no underlying basis except the bias that presupposes that God does not exist. You see, Theophilus, it isn't only religion that has difficult questions before itself but science as well. It is almost as if we were caught in a game and we can't get a final definitive answer to our most fundamental and basic question: why?

With this, however, I'd like to turn to another of your points.
You again raise the issue of evil and suffering and pain and death. Why do these exist and why have they not disappeared with the coming of Christ? It seems that nothing has really changed.

We have touched on some aspects of this question in previous letters but this is such a troubling question that we will again look at it.

We are living in troubling times where cruelty and torture have become so widespread, forming the policies of states, that we can no longer evade this question. In the past there was rampant cruelty, but it was more hidden. Now, with the advent of modern communication, this has changed and what happened anywhere in the world, enters our home through the communication network and affects us. Even poetry reflects a change in our position. In the past, poetry openly spoke of God's presence in the world. Modern poetry speaks of God, if at all, in a subdued and hidden manner. What is emphasized is man's suffering and the evil that is in the world.

There are no simple answers to this question and the answers that we are given, we do not want to accept. We want some kind of abstract explanation. But the question of evil, as all important questions, cannot be dealt with in the abstract but must be dealt with through living experiences.

There is no doubt that some of the evil introduced into the world comes from the hand of man. A clear example of this is war. War is absurd an yet we persist in it. If we go to the times of the ancient Greeks, the Trojan War starts with the quest for Helen and then escalates into parroted slogans which blow the confrontation into a major war, and when you consider it, over what? War has no clear goals or objectives and therefore it is neverending. War is always with us. We shed blood for high-sounding words and we destroy other men who believe other high-sounding words. War is an ultimate symbol of idolatry - giving substance to what has none. It is living in illusion and as long as we insist on this, we will always have wars with us. Idolatry is condemned in the scriptures not because of an infantile, jealous God who is afraid that we will worship other gods. He is a God who warns us of the perils that we enter when we set out on the path of unreality and delusion.

The problem of evil exists because, to a certain extent, our vision is limited. Only when you accept the whole, the totality, will evil come in last. It becomes a dominating consideration when we start with evil and then, we never get beyond it and accept the whole as being evil. When the All is totally free and gratuitous, every small thing is seen to be wanted and to be important. It is seen to have its unique part to play in the big gift of all things to each other. Ant this fact of the importance of the smallest of creation's members, to a certain extent, alleviates the pain that we live through. It offers us some hope.

There is a strange passage in the scriptures to the effect that we are not to resist evil. I think there is a lot of bitter truth in this statement, bitter because it is almost impossible for us to accept. The only way that evil will be completely eradicated from the face of the earth is if we completely stop resisting it. Any time that we challenge evil and confront it, we get dirtied with it and evil grows. There is a saying which goes along the lines of who will save us from our liberators. Those who liberate us eventually enslave us. I know that this sounds like a lot of pious and pointless talk which sounds defeatist and is totally impractical. Why, if we do not resist evil then it will over run the world and dominate it. By saying not to resist evil, we are echoing the fatalistic views of the past which kept humanity under the shackles of ignorance and blind subservience. I agree that this did happen in the past but where have we gotten? Has evil disappeared? Has it decreased? Have we seen dramatic changes for the better? I don't think so and maybe it is time to say that it is not so much that Christianity has failed but that it has never really been tried. I will be very frank with you - I find the words about not resisting evil very difficult to accept. I also find the beatitudes not comforting but bothersome because I find it impossible to live them. But just because I find something difficult, it does not take away from its truth.

You mention the fact that there are different teachings about God in different religions and you say that this is evidence for the fact that religions are man's inventions. I don't understand why you jump to the conclusion that you do. The fact that you have different teachings about God is not surprising because trying to talk about something which is beyond all language is going to create difficulties and cause problems. But there is something else that I want to bring out. Sometimes we forget, because of our careless language, and that is that Christianity is not really a religion. What religions do is teach us about God and how we are to behave and what significance we have and how to cope with the world. Religions, to a large extent are very practical things. Christianity on the other hand, does not so much teach as it does. It talks about an action that has taken place in human nature through the active intervention of God in the world and in human nature. Therefore, comparing Christianity to Hinduism or to Islam is like comparing apples and oranges. Unfortunately this comparison occurred in the past and still occurs in the present and creates a sense of competition which is the most correct or best religion. Christianity is not the best or the most correct. It simply talks about God's healing intervention in man.

Having said this, I want to point out that Christianity does not operate in a vacuum, suddenly appearing. It has historical precedence, especially with Israel and the Old Testament. And it also has echoes in other religions. Thus although there are differences amongst religions, there are also similarities, as I have mentioned in some of my earlier letters.

As to religious intolerance, there is no denying that it has gone on in the past and it is going on in the present. It is inexcusable and horrible. But the fact that people commit atrocities in the name of religion does not mean that religion condones horrible deeds of violence and intolerance. The fact that Hitler's armies borrowed the slogan of survival of the fittest from the theory of evolution in biology, does not mean that biology is responsible for the atrocities committed by Hitler.

I think that this is a good place to stop and we will continue our discussion in the next letter. Until then, I remain, as always,

Yours,

Bar-Abbas

Return to Index