Re: [asa] red in tooth and claw

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Sun Nov 29 2009 - 10:08:42 EST

Heya Merv,

As I said, I was oversimplifying things - I will not pretend I'm giving
anything close to a fully satisfactory explanation of my view here (and I
also won't pretend that everyone would ultimately find my view satisfactory
when fully explained - the modern draw to distrust nature and the world is
powerful, and not totally unjustified given the approach taken.) And of
course I'm not saying we should celebrate evil for evil's sake. That's
clearly ludicrous, and not at all what I speak of. I'd also differentiate
between God drawing good from evil, or turning evil to good, and God
conquering evil. In my mind they are related but distinct things.

Again, nothing I say in these short emails is going to be fully or
(probably) even largely satisfactory - at most I can illustrate the
direction I'm coming from. But one encapsulated summary may be.. once you
realize that no evil has or can come to pass that God cannot turn good, or
draw good out of, etc - and if you have faith or reason to believe that God
not only can ultimately account for these things, but in time will - it
cannot help but drastically change your perspective on evil. It no longer is
something you need to explain away or (to loosely quote John Walley) cope
with. It actually becomes instrumental, something which has a place in our
world and in God's plan, even as we are explicitly called to lessen it in
every way. That's what I meant by celebrated.

As for the pun, unintentional! But I'll never turn down an opportunity to
laugh. :)

I hope you didn't mean that the way it sounded: ... evil to be celebrated!?
> Taken at face value, that seems like heresy. I would rather have chosen a
> word like 'redeemed' (i.e. you did say 'God can *turn* evil into good
> --which is significantly different than *calling* evil good. And I would say
> rather, then that evil is not celebrated, but conquered. Just quibbling over
> words, but the details can be important.
> That's probably going to make me stick out like a sore thumb in this
>> discussion, but I'm going to stand by it to the end. And I extend this even
>> to the natural world - whatever pain and suffering is present in nature, it
>> is a mistake to call it senseless and irrational, and doubly a mistake to
>> regard it as the whole story. I disagree that as Christians (or even as
>> theists in the broader sense) we should or have to judge nature by what we
>> know is an incomplete picture - in fact, I think this incomplete state of
>> affairs is precisely what must be stressed again and again. As should the
>> fact that God is not merely the God of men, but the God of all - nature and
>> animals certainly included. And that acting as if this isn't the case (as if
>> God has a plan for man, but - because we aren't privy to all of God's
>> thoughts - He apparently has no plan for nature) is a grave mistake.
> ... is a *grave* mistake!? Obviously the pun filter on my email server must
> be malfunctioning. :->
> --Merv
>> Keep in mind, I also (if I recall right) pointed out how it was difficult
>> to respond to Oscar's adviser's query, lacking more details about what
>> problems he saw in nature - so I'm not going to pretend my answer is even
>> directed squarely at his adviser's worries. But I'm giving an answer in the
>> direction I see it heading, broad as it is.
>> And I'm also not going to pretend that what I'm saying here is common
>> Christian orthodoxy, and certainly not that I'm chastising everyone for not
>> adhering to it. While I think thoughts along these lines are found
>> throughout Christian writings (even Aquinas, with his thoughts on evil, goes
>> in a direction I'd say is close to this - and Leibniz comes very close), I
>> realize I'm very likely the odd man out here. Indeed, from my perspective
>> the problem of evil (natural and moral both) does not exist - it is a
>> non-issue. That alone would put me at odds with even the boldest modern
>> theologians.
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:31 AM, John Walley <<mailto:
>>>> wrote:
>> I think Schwarzwald's right in that Christainity is unique because
>> Christ has conquered death and we no longer have to fear it. So
>> death where is thy sting? And I guess that could be extrapolated
>> to pain and suffering as well, "to live is Christ, to die is
>> gain", but these are all pragmatic, coping strategies. They don't
>> get to the root issue at hand which is why this suffering exists
>> in the first place.
>> Notice Oscar's advisor did not query which God has the most
>> practical offering or most fulfilling theology, he wanted to know
>> why he should be lieve in God at all. And none of these responses
>> have really dealt with that head on in my opinion. This discussion
>> may be an interesting apologetic for people who are already
>> Christians and trust God, but for those on the outside looking in
>> with cruelty in nature as the stated objective, I suggest we have
>> to be able to deal with this more directly.
>> John
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Schwarzwald <
>> <>>
>> *To:* <>
>> *Sent:* Sat, November 28, 2009 10:10:45 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] red in tooth and claw
>> What if nature isn't actually as brutal as we take it to be? And
>> really, of all the religions that could or should cringe because
>> of any 'brutality' we project upon nature - and a lot of it is
>> projection - doesn't it seem odd for Christians to do it? The
>> religion with the incarnate God who was betrayed, tormented, and
>> executed? Isn't ours the one religion, regardless of particular
>> sect, which makes it abundantly clear that one should not judge a
>> reality by its incomplete history?
>> The one lesson I take from Christ's death and resurrection is that
>> it's a drastic mistake to regard torment and death as the final
>> lesson in history, whether it be human history or the greater,
>> natural history. And the idea that Hitler's eugenics was in any
>> way a correct reflection of evolution as we know it - particularly
>> given what we've learned since then - seems dramatically naive.
>> Count me in the apparent minority of Christians who don't think
>> the habits of the natural world pose a problem for our theology,
>> and in fact bolsters it. The problem isn't the facts on the
>> ground, but the perspective.
>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:57 PM, David Clounch
>> < <>> wrote:
>> >Sculptured indeed! Well-stated, Bernie. You are exactly right
>> that this is something for Christians to struggle with, and I
>> wish I had a complete answer.
>> People say Christianity is brutal and bloody. And God is a
>> mean inhumane jerk for acts like slaying an entire enemy army
>> in one night.
>> Well, why then do they think evolution is kinder and gentler?
>> The bloodiness and brutality of Christianity is a matchstick
>> in a firestorm compared to the competition in biology.
>> What about te ideal of the lion laying down with the lamb?
>> What if nature is brutal because it is corrupted by the
>> rebellious? And God would have it be different?
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Merv Bitikofer
>> < <>> wrote:
>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>> However, and I had glimpses of this as a Christian
>> even, I think the ‘red in tooth and claw’ is a
>> tremendous acknowledgement of how evolution works. The
>> ruthlessness of nature, even Hitler eugenic-style
>> thinking, is how evolution created the wonderful life
>> forms that we witness today. Nature/evolution isn’t
>> just ‘red in tooth and claw’ as some unfortunate
>> thing, but it is the way life is SCULPTURED. Life is
>> SCULPTED by evolution by “tooth and claw.”
>> I’m not saying Hitler and eugenics are right. I’m
>> saying that the ruthless nature of evolution being
>> ‘red in tooth and claw’ is a major component for
>> getting life as beautiful as we know it today.
>> For example, why are so few creatures born blind?
>> Because they quickly get eaten, with not much chance
>> of their genes being passed on. Same thing with many
>> other defects.
>> …Bernie
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Sculptured indeed! Well-stated, Bernie. You are exactly
>> right that this is something for Christians to struggle
>> with, and I wish I had a complete answer. But I do have
>> part of an answer that is of course, unavailable to you at
>> the moment. And that involves God's use of suffering to
>> craft us. Christians have long lived with the paradox of
>> accepting suffering, yet while praying to be delivered
>> from it. None of us wants it, by definition, and yet we
>> realize (usually only in retrospect) that we were made
>> stronger for having gone through it. This is only the
>> human element and makes no pretension of addressing all of
>> nature. But if I was to begin to craft an answer, I would
>> start with the incarnate Christ entering into humanity,
>> indeed, into nature. George Murphy's book "Cosmos in the
>> Light of the Cross" is helpful in this regard.
>> By the way, you seem to want to remain morally above
>> things like eugenics or the whole "tooth & claw" scenario.
>> If these things are but the brutal tools that sculpted
>> beauty (according to you), then why do you find them so
>> objectionable? On what basis do you object? You'll note
>> that I object to them too even while I acknowledge their
>> existence. Christ calls me to live above any such natural
>> law and to reject "survival of the fittest" as a means of
>> living with my neighbor. But you have rejected Christ, and
>> that basis is not available to you (unless you want to
>> engage in the irrational practice of cherry picking things
>> you like about Christ's teachings while yet thinking Him
>> and his disciples as deluded fools or power-hungry
>> frauds.) Since you no longer have the Christian basis
>> available and yet regard Evolutionary wisdom as a kind of
>> guiding light, on what rational basis do you wish to
>> continue objecting to nature's enlightened evolutionary
>> teeth & claws whether they come in the form of eugenics or
>> otherwise? Do you not quite trust the capable hands of
>> evolution to do what needs to be done?
>> --Merv
>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>> Checked by AVG - <>
>> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.76/2518 -
>> Release Date: 11/21/09 19:41:00
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>> Checked by AVG - Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database:
>> 270.14.76/2518 - Release Date: 11/21/09 19:41:00
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG -
> Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.87/2534 - Release Date: 11/29/09
> 07:49:00
> .

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 29 10:09:22 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 29 2009 - 10:09:22 EST