Tags
atheism, Catholicism, Homunculus, Jesus, Meaning, Philosophy, religion, suffering, Theodicy
Crucified Christ by
Matthias Grünewald
Sometimes texts and utterances become what they purport to describe. Case in point? This little meditation on the spiritual meaning of suffering, An Attempt to Explain Christianity to Atheists In a Manner That Might Not Freak Them Out by The Bad Catholic at Patheos.com. Well, it certainly became a source of suffering for me (and apparently for P.Z. Myers of Pharyngula), and I suspect not a few others trying to sift through the article for one reason or another. Whether or not the article succeeds in becoming meaningful is another question.
Honestly, the whole thing is a Gish Gallop for me, from the scholastic presentation to the major assumptions of the argument and the vocabulary its author uses. Were I to attempt a refutation, I wouldn’t know where to start. If this was an attempt (as the author suggests) to speak to atheists, I can’t help but think it is an utter failure (or perhaps an ironic joke). If its author ever seriously had an unbelieving audience in mind, then he has done just about as much as he could to avoid communicating with that audience.
There is however one thing about this piece that does catch my attention; its final paragraph (emphasis added):
This changes everything: To see the child with leukemia is to see Christ suffering in that child, suffering to bring the world back to Perfection. To experience agony is to cry out with the strain of lifting this fallen world to Paradise. We are called to recognize this, and to actualize this. This is why I am a Christian.
I say this bit catches my attention, because I find it genuinely disturbing. I also recognize it (or something like it) from a number of previous conversations with believers, many of whom have advanced the argument that life is somehow less meaningful without God. They don’t always state their position in such stark terms, but I do think the view is common enough to rise above the idiosyncracies of this particular article. So, it is perhaps worth a comment or two.
Kitch-Christ: The true meaning of suffering?
The claim that Bad Catholic makes, that to see a child suffering is to see Christ suffering within her is thoroughly dehumanizing, because it relegates the suffering of the child to a secondary role. What is moving about the suffering of a child is not her own suffering but that of Christ. The meaning of suffering has, according to Bad Catholic, less to do with the pain of particular persons than the cosmic struggle of a heroic Jesus trying to lift the fallen world into paradise. I am not even sure if it is the crucified Christ we are supposed to see in this girl. Rather, I think we are supposed to see in the eyes of a child suffering the muscular Jesus of the Lord’s Gym lifting his heavy cross up to save the world. Her suffering is meaningful precisely because of the meaning that Christ gives it.
No.
Not just ‘no’, but Hell no!
And if you want to write about a deficiency of meaning in the world then you have one right there. Never mind a world without God; how about one in which you cannot see the most compelling moments of human suffering because of the big giant Jesus standing in your way!
If the suffering of people right in front of you requires a theory making it about something else altogether, or rather someone else, then your faith does not augment the meaning of suffering; it detracts from it. And the theory that was supposed to deepen our understanding of suffering has instead blunted its very force. It is not the suffering of the little girl that matters; it is not her loss of hope, or her agony, or her tears; it is that of someone else.
As I read this utter crap, I can’t help but to be struck by a quote the Bad Catholic keeps at the top of his webpage. It is attributed to G.K. Chesterton; “Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair.” I can’t help but think this wonderful little quote might well have forestalled this miserable exercise in tortured logic and pathetic indifference to the actual condition of suffering in another living being.
Perhaps one ought to let his sense of other living things be less a theory and more of a love affair.
The meaning of human suffering is immediate. This is no less true of others than it is for ourselves. I for one do not need to see Jesus Christ or any other supernatural entity to give a damn about the suffering of another human being, or even that of an animal.
Do you?
Photo by Kevin Carter
northierthanthou 
Every time I think that I have heard it all up comes another religious, vultureous, inhuman, fairytale that insults the intelligence of any reasonable person. How on earth can they present this crap in this day and age. This is bullshit from Neanderthals that have no conscience!
My own thinking is that it’s theology of the how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin variety. The best case scenario is that all of it is utterly meaningless, but who knows; maybe that is how he thinks. I can only hope that when the ball hits the glove this guy and those that think like him drop their games and do what it takes to help whoever needs it.
Thanks for sharing this ridiculous gibberish. It makes me want to re-examine the success of my cleansing to remove any remaining catholic residue from my childhood. I need to know there are no remnants in the bowl…
It’s hard to believe otherwise intelligent people (benefit of the doubt) can be so immersed in bullshit and call it roses.
Well I’ve certainly heard better things coming from catholic quarters. Honestly, I’ve seen some folks from that tradition who had a damned fine grasp on human needs and what it takes to help others. They didn’t talk like this though, not even close. And in any event, congratulations on getting clear of your family faith (if I am reading you right). I know how hard that can be.
You read me right. I appreciate your ability to produce clear-headed dialogue on such a muddled subject. I remember reading your post and the attached article by bc and becoming somewhat enraged by the entire thing…forgetting that I too have witnessed an outpouring of love and giving from members of that community.
On a side note, nearly my entire family has cleared themselves of that faith. I was proud of my dad when, days from his own death and entering hospice, he not only refused to “have a chat” with the visiting priest, he made it clear he would die on his own terms.
Is that Jesus as a vulture?
Lol, …not really what i was after. Frankly, I was trying to suggest that empathy is natural, not inferred. I know the first time I saw that picture I felt sick for days. And angry. And helpless. It seemed a good source to illustrate the kind of immediate reaction I was talking about. And I thought it best not to rattle on about it, …then i go and write this and ruin my whole cryptic angle. …sigh!
Insightful as always, Dan. Your conclusion is dead on. And, to answer your final question, “no.”
Even as a Christ-follower, I don’t portend to know the correlation between suffering and faith . . . if there even is one, nor needs to be. I agreed more with Mr. Myers retort and question, “I lost my will to read further. He needs to examine his premises: why must there be a purpose to suffering?” As well as I agreed with your own, “The meaning of human suffering is immediate.” So too should our collective human response be . . . this does not require faith nor belief, only compassion.
P.S. I am so stealing the line, “Perhaps one ought to let his sense of other living things be less a theory and more of a love affair.”
Hi Kent,
I don’t know if you realize it, because I am lousy at keeping up with my replies, but I often look for your comments. I figure you’ll keep me honest when it;s needed, and I appreciate seeing something positive in people of faith. It would be easy for me to lose sight of that, but that too would be dehumanizing. When you can’t see anything of value in those you disagree with…. I butt heads often with religious folks, but I never want to go there.
Anyway, I do hope you have indeed stolen that line and I hope you have enjoyed it as well.
Chat you later.
I am speechless, flabbergasted,,, Thank you for your most excellent post.
Thank you CM.
Thank you for reading the article for me! The mildly amusing title it, I suspect,the only thing i would have liked about it, and then I suspect i am laughing at Mr Bad Catholic, not with him.
That is the weirdest thing about it for me. The article was preaching to the choir if ever I have seen it; definitely not engagement with the opposition, so to speak.
At the outermost level, though, I think the referenced article is quite honest and accurate about why the author, and I suspect many others, are Christians: because Christianity offers a comforting explanation for suffering, and they really really want that comfort. They are Christians, not because they think that the claims of Christianity are true, but because those claims let them feel better, emotionally, about the universe. Which is fine, of course, until some of them start using them as a basis for public policy, or imposing them on others with maybe more emotional resilience…
I expect you are right about the motivations at stake. There really is an interesting question there about the meaning of suffering and its relationship to religious tenets. The author botches it in an effort to stretch the polemics. Disappointing, actually. The subject is worth a serious thought or three, but that would have taken a lighter touch.
Always love your posts–controversial perhaps but oh, do they ever hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Thank you CS.
Some may disagree but as a Christian (although I did not read the article so I am not sure of exactly what their point was) my two cents on the subject is that suffering, pain, disease etc..is not from God. We live in a fallen world and the pain and destruction is our own doing. As a cancer survivor who doesn’t smoke and took basically good care of myself can attest to that it was my surroundings, pollution, food additives, and what have you that attributed to my cancer. So does that child (or anyone) deserve to go through illness and hardships, no…but in a fallen world bad things happen, and people say and do stupid things. Christianity offers hope through Jesus Christ through all the pain, suffering and death in this world is temporary and that we will once again be made whole in His image for all eternity. Just my humble opinion. For the record, this is not to make me feel better, I am a Christian and desire to know my Lord, my God…to live according to His plan for my life in serving Him in this fallen world. And yes, your posts are indeed “controversial” but for me that is good, because it keeps me focused on my faith in Jesus Christ and allows me to search deep within as to why I truly believe and I am never disappointed with the results. Patty
Thank you for commenting Patty. I obviously don’t agree with the doctrine of original sin, but I’m glad you chose to put it on the table, because that is obviously part of the beliefs in question. I’m glad you are still with us and able to read and perhaps disagree with me. Be well.
That is how we learn isn’t it? Patty
I do not “get” at all sentiments like the one above. Life is what it is. Those of us who fare well have a responsibility to care about and help, when we can, our fellow human beings. Most of the hatred I see in this world is via differences in either religious beliefs or tribal/ethnic affiliations and people claiming their take on God is the right one. I agree with the John Lennon song “Imagine” on this topic.
Thank you Juliana. I expect your thoughts are a little closer to my own.
God has 2 sides: good and bad. It is DUALITY