Some Jesuits and Keith Ward on evolution, original sin, and evil

I've read a post at Whosoever Desires, a Jesuit blog, titled Evolution and Original Sin: The Problem of Evil, and then later read the chapter on the same subject in the Keith Ward book I just got - The Big Questions in Science and Religion.

This subject really has my attention. I've always been bothered by the problem of evil, but recently have been thinking about the impact that the theory of evolution (plus other science) has not only on suffering, but also on the supposed cause of suffering (original sin) and the traditional remedy (the atonement). Stuff abut atonement will have to wait for another post, though I do have some past posts on it - David Hart / Atonement .... James Alison / Atonement - and I recommend The Incarnation: God's Gift of Love by Kenneth R. Overberg SJ.

But about evolution, original sin, and the problem of evil, here's part of the post at Whosoever Desires ......

*****************

[...] It seems that for St. Paul, Original Sin is the general solution to the problem of evil. Through Adam’s disobedience, death and suffering entered the world. And according to Romans 8, since through man’s sin death and suffering entered the world, it will be through the New Adam’s obedience that creation will be freed. Bluntly put, we know this is not the case, at least in the traditional sense. Adam as a historical man who sinned and brought about suffering in creation did not exist. Evil and suffering existed in the world long before human beings came around.

For Teilhard [de Chardin], this means that “if there is an original sin in the world, it can only be and have been everywhere in it and always, from the earliest nebulae to be formed as far as the most distant.” The problem of original sin and evil is not that it is a small event that occurred way back then, but that it is so large an event. It can no longer be a particular “act” restricted to a man or even a first population of human beings. It must be a “state” of all of creation .... when God, who is existence itself, decides to create finite being, being that can only become perfect by means of change and growth, there will necessarily be statistical evil .... A perfect world could not actually involve true change in the realm of creatures and freedom in the realm of humans ...

Note again, for Teilhard, this is not a deficiency in the creative act, but is of the very structure of participated being. It is the necessary side product. He notes in a footnote that “original sin then becomes a combined effect of atomicity [which is the statistical disorder of multiplicity that we see after the big bang for example] and organicity [which is the general contamination of the human mass by the use of human freedom in selfish ways].” The more human beings misuse their freedom spiritually, the more the human social mass will be effected through natural selection. Those who are more selfish may be selected out to propagate more since they survive longer, and so sin works its way into DNA ....

**********************

Keith Ward, in chapter 3 (Is Evolution Compatible with Creation?) of his book mentioned above, has a similar take on the subject. Here are some bits from the chapter. I've put stuff out of order, but the pages are cited ......

*****************************

Human beings are essentially parts of an evolving physical universe with general laws that have to be exactly what they are in order to produce human persons. Those laws will produce earthquakes, stellar explosions, periodic extinctions of life, and volcanic eruptions as an essential part of having a universe like this. If beings like human persons are going to exist, they have to exist in a universe in which suffering and death is necessary .... you may say, as Ivan does in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novel, The Brothers Karamazov, that you are still repelled by the amount of suffering in the universe and you would rather reject the whole idea of God than pay the price of the ticket for human existence.

In a sense, most religious believers agree. They worship -- admire and revere -- the perfection of the Divine Being. But they stand perplexed and bitter at the amount of suffering, however necessary, in the world. Partly for that reason, rather than for any selfish desire for further personal existence, most religions have posited an afterlife in which overwhelming good becomes possible for everyone .... A perfect God who chooses to create this universe, accepting that suffering is necessary in it, must offer to all conscious beings who suffer, if it is possible to do so, an overwhelming personal good. That personal good is a life after death ... for everyone without exception ... (p.80)

If suffering is attributed to the sin of some first human being, it seems grossly unfair that all animals should now suffer for something for which they are not responsible. Augustine's theory of "original guilt," according to which all are guilty for that original sin, which they did not, of course, commit personally, seems morally perverse. It is not, incidentally, in the Bible and it is not accepted by Jews or Eastern Orthodox Christians or most Protestants. (p. 64)

What some Christians call "original sin" can be seen, from an evolutionary perspective, as the decision by groups of early humans or even prehominids to realize their genetically inherent tendencies toward lust and aggression, at the expense of similarly inherent tendencies toward kinship bonding and altruism. Over generations, those destructive tendencies have "switched on" the relevant genetic mechanisms, until it has become "human nature" to be selfish and aggressive ..... The "golden age" myths ... are ways of saying that the true nature of humans, what they are made for, is a life of compassion, wisdom, and love. But humans have "fallen" into desire, ignorance, and self-centeredness, and they need to find a way to return to primal innocence. We know there was no historical golden age or fall and that there is no return to primal innocence. But wisdom, creativity, and love can still be seen as the essential goals of human life. (p. 81)

Without our striving after virtue in this world, heaven would not be a possibility for us. Heaven is not a continuation of such striving but its consummation and its ending. Fortunately, too, according to most religions, God will forgive our wrongdoing and grant more than we deserve -- it is a gift that does not depend soley on our own virtues but on the mercy and love of God. It is chiefly in that sense that God will ultimately prove to be a loving father. (p. 74)

*************************

While I like what the Whosoever Desires post and Keith Ward have to say, I'm not entirely happy with their expanations for why this kind of universe, one with progress through suffering/death, is the only one possible. Still, the thing Keith Ward wrote about the overwhelming good of an afterlife with God making up for the badness of mortal life reminds me of the last week of the Spiritual Exercises, in which we try to comprehend and share in Jesus's joy in his resurrection.

Soon I hope to post something about what Keith Ward has to say about Jesus's role in attracting us into being better people (un-atonement :)