Pope: God was silent towards Mother Teresa to teach her empathy for nonbelievers
posted at 7:22 pm on September 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
He truly does work in mysterious ways. Had he spoken to her throughout her life, it would be taken as proof of his existence. The fact that he didn’t speak to her? Not proof of his nonexistence, but of his charity towards those who disbelieve. He can’t lose.
Pope Benedict said on Saturday that even the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta “suffered from the silence of God” despite her immense charity and faith…
It is significant that the Pope mentioned Mother Teresa’s torment about God’s silence as not being unusual because there was some speculation that the letters could hurt the procedure to make her a saint.
“All believers know about the silence of God,” he said in unprepared remarks. “Even Mother Teresa, with all her charity and force of faith, suffered from the silence of God,” he said.
He said believers sometimes had to withstand the silence of God in order to understand the situation of people who do not believe.
Meanwhile, one of her biographers insists that it’s not that she didn’t believe in God, it’s simply that he ceased communicating with her directly after 1946. I’ll take his word for it, although given some of the things she wrote, his interpretation seems somewhat … nuanced:
“Where is my faith?” she wrote. “Even deep down… there is nothing but emptiness and darkness… If there be God — please forgive me.”…
“What do I labor for?” she asked in one letter. “If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.”
According to the same Christianity Today piece, she felt the absence of Jesus from the time she started working in Calcutta’s slums “until her death.” I.e. it wasn’t just moments of doubt. Exit question: Was Hitch right?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Bush needs to hire the Pope’s spin guy to replace Rove.
zane on September 1, 2007 at 7:42 PM
although i would say the Abrahamic faiths are full of people who suffers great doubt, which makes their faith ultimatley stronger.
zane on September 1, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Many of the quotes seem to assume faith as a starting point, though I’ll grant that the one you chose is opening the door to atheism.
John on September 1, 2007 at 7:44 PM
she felt the absence of Jesus from the time she started working in Calcutta’s slums “until her death.”
That’s because Jesus was spending his time giving people hit records and assorted sports championships.
Krydor on September 1, 2007 at 7:47 PM
That Christian meme group is very resilient.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 1, 2007 at 7:47 PM
I don’t understand her situation at all. Why would she live her life as a servant to Christ when she seems to doubt he even exists? Why would she do that? Why spread the compassion of God by works of faith when you don’t believe. I think she did believe. I think she was disappointed that God was not with her “in spirit”. She began to question her faith and I think she was right to do so but for very different reasons.
I have a theory. One that I’m sure would agitate a fair number of people here. I think I know why God “abandoned” her. I think her religion betrayed her by encouraging a great insult to God himself. I think I’ll let it go at that.
Guardian on September 1, 2007 at 7:48 PM
Zane has it right. Like Abraham, Mother Teresa’s Faith was tested by great doubt.
God is comprehended, not understood.
Randy
williars on September 1, 2007 at 7:51 PM
i want to add, there is something very moving about a woman, devoting her life to charity for the sake of her God, having deep doubts that tore her apart, yet continuing. If there is a God, surley his sign to this servant was the faces of the children she and her sisters saved. Seeing the numbers of faces that she couldnt save must have sowed the doubt, and that is less an indictment of God, if he exists, and more an indictment of mans inability to eradicate abject poverty in the world. Just my opinion…
zane on September 1, 2007 at 7:58 PM
AP, before I launch into a “loose cannon” tirade, please tell me that that statement was written partly tongue-and-cheek.
Weight of Glory on September 1, 2007 at 8:02 PM
This is never gonna end…
Bad Candy on September 1, 2007 at 8:04 PM
Oh, yes it is.
Jaibones on September 1, 2007 at 8:05 PM
I don’t know much about Mother Teresa, or her faith, and I don’t know about the Pope’s explanation there. I know that I feel doubt and unbelief often in trying to live out my faith. And I am reminded of two things –
1) Mark 9.24 – Lord I do believe, help my unbelief.
2) St. John of the Cross’ “Dark Night of the Soul” – which describes a person’s crisis of faith. These periods are often characterized by long lengths of time of doubt.
I believe it is common for someone to feel God’s absence. Faith, after all, is belief, even when God seems absent.
nailinmyeye on September 1, 2007 at 8:06 PM
The TIME article said he spoke to her again for a few weeks in 1959.
She died in 1997. So she spent about forty years in a spiritual desert and then went into the promised land. 40 years. Hmm, where have I heard that before?
pedestrian on September 1, 2007 at 8:19 PM
As an aside, one of the TV networks came out with a fresh version of the Gospel story a few years back. In its depiction of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness, they used this very same thing to add an edge to one of the temptations.
When Satan offered up the kingdoms of the world in return for bowing to him, he showed Jesus all of the starving and suffering poor whom Jesus had not personally healed and helped. It made it much more dramatic because to reject Satan, Jesus had to also foresake those thousands of people. Not Biblical, but very compelling.
angryoldfatman on September 1, 2007 at 8:21 PM
The Pope wasn’t making an argument for the existence of God stemming from the personal experience of Mother Teresa. He was speaking to an audience that had already made the ascension of faith in both God’s existence and His activity. If you would like, go to Barnes and Noble, and go to the Religion isle, there you will find about thirty different well written theological books by the Pope, formerly Ratzinger. There you will find where he begins with arguments (proofs) for the existence of God. I’m not catholic, but as a well read protestant, I have a great respect for him. It would be a really bad judgment to think that one could draw out proofs of God from what he said in respect to Mother Teresa.
Also, I really doubt, that if Mother Teresa had no doubt, and spoke often of God speaking to her, that it would have served as proof of God for anyone who did not already believe.
Weight of Glory on September 1, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Feeling the absence of God isn’t quite the same as not believing in God. If my husband is being cold to me and not talking, I feel his absence but can tell quite clearly that he exists.
I can speak from experience as one who has felt this absence. I couldn’t explain it as I felt I was doing all the right things and felt none of the passion I had previously. And while there were times that this absence made me doubt, it mostly made me angry at God the way I would be angry at my husband for being cold to me.
Also, Jesus Christ felt the absence of God until His death; hence the “My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?”
Seriously, the atheists here must assume we’re all robots if you really want to make something of this.
Esthier on September 1, 2007 at 8:21 PM
AP, and all others, this may help:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/c9eb59af-074b-4431-9315-9c1ae538fa3c
Weight of Glory on September 1, 2007 at 8:28 PM
In the midst of all this hullaballoo about Mother Theresa, and what some seem to think as her “less believing”, it’s prudent to remember:
Mother Theresa’s wish was that her notes be destroyed upon her death. They were not. And it was the decision of the Church not to destroy them.
So ya can’t say the Pope, or anyone else in the Church, is being “nuanced” in any statements. Nothing was being hidden, on the contrary…it is Mother Theresa who is being disrespected.
Her papers should have been as she wished….destroyed.
JetBoy on September 1, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Good gravy! None of us have led her life, working with the poor, sick, down trodden, I can’t imagine. It is no wonder she had doubts.
CrimsonFisted on September 1, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Many today look at Christians as those who have given up on the hard questions; those who have said, “I don’t need to answer that, God knows.” They look at Christians as being derelict in the task of introspection as to what they believe. This is in fact quite the opposite. Most Christians throughout history have examined their lives with more scrutiny than most, because they have more to account for than this life alone. They seek the answers because they don’t want to be wrong any more than the next guy. As others have written, the kind of deep inner searching that Mother Teresa exhibited, has been present throughout all of Christian history: Augustine, Tertullian, St. John of the Cross, Aquinas, Assisi, Luther, Zwingli, Edwards, etc. All have doubted, and if you read their works you will find a kind of humility that is not present in most. I really cannot believe that the doubt of a wonderful woman is being treated as a sort of indictment of the Christian religion.
Weight of Glory on September 1, 2007 at 8:39 PM
*appreciative smile*
AP, I’d like to nominate a Hot Air 2007 Best Response on Faith Related Thread.
inviolet on September 1, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Ditto!
Lawrence on September 1, 2007 at 8:57 PM
No, he shouldn’t.
I’m going to get myself in worse trouble than usual with this.
I realize that I’m disagreeing with the Pope, however making excuses for or if you prefer second guessing God shouldn’t fall to anyone but God unless you wish to make Hitchens correct.
Now I’m chastising the Pope, if he has issue with Mother Theresa’s relationship with God he should be patient and ask her when he meets with her again.
This is not for sake of argument, just a statement.
Speakup on September 1, 2007 at 8:58 PM
One has to wonder, Was he “silence” intended for to actually listen to what was trully going on around her. As the poverty that surrounded her first had to be eliminated in the soul of the people of Calcutta. No amount of fiscal aid can eliminate a condition that’s strongly accepted by the individuals as their lot in life.
Zaire67 on September 1, 2007 at 9:07 PM
Gosh, I totally don’t get the fuss. Why are people separating these statements from 1) her life and 2) her constant encouragement to other believers, and non Christians as well?
Several others point out above that not feeling God’s presence is not the same as not believing in God. They’re absolutely right. If she had no faith (faith of the will as opposed to sensible–”felt”–faith, why did she keep up her life in the way she did? Either she is a liar and a hypocrite, or someone who, though feeling God’s absence and even doubting His existence, continued to ACT faithfully, give her life to a Jesus whose love she couldn’t even feel, or perceive, and even encourage others in their faith. I’d call that heroic. Just my two cents.
As far as I’m concerned, her wish regarding the letters is instructive too. Why do you suppose she didn’t want the letters published?
Given the context of her life, I’d say it’s very likely that she didn’t want other believers, or non-believers, to be scandalized after her death.
And as for respect of her wish: I too wanted her wish honored, simply because it was this wonderful woman who made it, but I respect the judgment of the Church in deciding this was best for the Church as a whole. Heck, she was in a religious order and NOTHING belongs to you, not even your privacy, if the greater good is at stake (I speak from the experience of living in a convent; don’t ask) : the Church could have ordered those things released when she was alive and she couldn’t have said a thing about it. That they didn’t actually says a lot about their respect for her.
inviolet on September 1, 2007 at 9:07 PM
I wasn’t a philosophy major, but I don’t think you can ever prove nonexistence.
The fact that she continued to do all that she did while suffering under those doubts is the evidence in favor of God’s existence, not the doubts.
…
Anwyn on September 1, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Me either.
But I was surprised to discover that the Pope knows what other people go through directly by God. Though ironically, Hitchens claims the same omnipotence to proclaim her an atheist. 40-40 deuce I say. But I doubt Hitch will wait long to respond.
Spirit of 1776 on September 1, 2007 at 9:19 PM
That’s simply nonsense. If I do something because I think my dead grandmother would have wanted me to, in no way does it prove that she wanted me to. Rather, it suggests either that I wanted to do it or thought it was the right thing to do and was seeking a justification.
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 9:22 PM
“Thought it was the right thing to do?”
By what standard?
Anwyn on September 1, 2007 at 9:23 PM
AP, unless your dead grandmother left behind a book detailing what she wanted you to do, and you’d never met your grandmother and had your doubts that she was the author, the comparison is pretty weak.
Anwyn on September 1, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Pavlov and his dogs…
Why are atheists obsessed with something they don’t believe in?
TheBigOldDog on September 1, 2007 at 9:24 PM
TheBigOldDog,
I was just going to write something like that.
I’m glad I wasn’t the only one thinking it.
terryannonline on September 1, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Honestly, this is one of the most frustrating, if not the most frustrating, things for nonbelievers to talk about with people of faith. Any setback you have, any hint that God might not exist or might not be quite the champ that you think he is, is spun shamelessly to somehow redound to God’s advantage. If something wonderful happens, thank God. If something terrible happens, God is “testing” us or he’s working mysteriously. Mother Teresa doubted God’s existence? Just another one of God’s tests. Other priests and nuns feel God’s existence? Just God showing them the way. Everything he does is right right right.
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 9:26 PM
For the same reason that little boy felt compelled to yell out, “The emperor has no clothes.”
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 9:27 PM
AP,
Maybe he is always right because He is, um, God.
terryannonline on September 1, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Well, you still ignored the fact that unlike your dead grandmother, there’s a book of instructions that Mother Teresa followed.
I don’t presume to know if she was tested or what. I simply stated that you can’t prove his nonexistence any more than anybody else cna prove his existence, and that the fact that Mother Teresa went about her work in the face of tormenting doubts indicates belief. Actions speak louder than words, etc.
Anwyn on September 1, 2007 at 9:28 PM
My last directed to AP.
Anwyn on September 1, 2007 at 9:29 PM
I didn’t know that. Thanks for sharing that bit of info.
Spirit of 1776 on September 1, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Folks, you are simply not going to find evidence of God’s existence nor proof that He doesn’t exist, within her personal writings concerning her struggles with faith and doubt; and for goodness sake you shouldn’t expect to find it there. Put it this way, if she were to have never had such doubts, would you look at that as proof of God’s existence? Not likely, and you would not be faulted by that. I would never approach some one who didn’t believe, and begin an argument of God’s existence with the personal writings of any struggling saint. The Pope was trying to set her up as an example to believers, not unbelievers. Shoot, if you really want to read some serious introspection by another wonderful Christian, read Grief Observed by C.S. Lewis. It was written shortly after his wife died. Also compare his approach to Christian suffering in particular and human suffering in general in Grief Observed with what he wrote in The Problem of Pain.
Weight of Glory on September 1, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Because they’re persecuted for it just like Christians or any other belief is, it’s just that in this country (and I assume in others) Atheism is a minority belief and as such suffers persecution in many areas of life.
Speakup on September 1, 2007 at 9:35 PM
I am a Christian and I have NEVER EVER EVER had God speak to me. In fact, it is the opposite. I struggle to pray, because I feel I speak into the void.
Still I believe, for it is Rational.
(See the Last few posts. Nonfactor, I will have time probably on Monday to respond.)
Tim Burton on September 1, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Precisely. You start from an absurd conclusion — God exists and is all-knowing and all-powerful — and proceed from there. Every contradiction and absurdity that follows derives from that belief. “Let’s see: Mother Teresa was tormented for decades by the fact that she didn’t believe in God. But we know that (a) God exists and (b) God is always right, so her lack of faith in him must also be right. Maybe … it’s a test? Okay, sounds good. It’s a test.”
I don’t follow this analogy at all. I knew my dead grandmother in life; we had conservations so I have some inkling, although not dispositive, of how she would want me to behave. Those are the “instructions.” But at the end of the day, I can interpret those instructions within reasonable parameters to justify the course of action I personally prefer. For instance, I have two female Christian friends. One of them absolutely rules out any form of sex before marriage. The other rules out copulation but permits other kinds of sex. Both cite the Bible for authority. Sounds to me like they’re reading the “instructions” a bit selectively.
I’m always amazed that believers think it’s a worthy point to say that I can’t prove God doesn’t exist. It’s just as predictable as what the TheBigOldDog said about atheists being “obsessed” with what we don’t believe in. If you choose to assert that something phenomenally preposterous is true, the burden is on you to prove that it is. That’s where that whole “flying spaghetti monster” gag that some atheists taunt Christians with come from. I can’t disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster either. Does that mean we should give him a go, too?
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Persecution?
You mean like having to listen to a valedictorian say that Jesus helped her get good grades or a pastor at your dead grandmother’s funeral obnoxiously take the opportunity to proselytize?
Or, what?
Anwyn on September 1, 2007 at 9:37 PM
You’re not alone.
Good, feel better now or should I buy you a bullhorn so you can walk around 7/24 screeching it to everyone in earshot?
Your obsessed with something you don’t believe in, don’t understand and are compelled to try to destroy something which does a great deal of good in the world and brings peace and joy to millions upon millions. What a worthy goal you have. Good luck with it.
TheBigOldDog on September 1, 2007 at 9:39 PM
I don’t feel persecuted at all. I feel like the subject in those group psychology experiments where the researcher draws two lines on the blackboard, one obviously longer than the other, and all the other people in the room — who are all secretly assisting in the experiment — say that the shorter line is the longer of the two, just to see how the subject will react. We have two possibilities here, one of which is obviously more likely than the other, and the rest of the “class” is telling me that the short line is the long one. You’re welcome to it, but don’t be surprised when atheists occasionally say, “Are you seeing the same two lines I am?”
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Speaking of C.S. Lewis, interestingly, he was a staunch atheist before he became a Christian. Just sayin’.
His little book Mere Christianity has some good examples of his thinking when he was an atheist and how his beliefs changed.
inviolet on September 1, 2007 at 9:41 PM
I’m not trying to destroy anything, any more than I’m trying to destroy kids’ belief in Santa. But since you guys like to play armchair psychoanalyst with me, I’ll tell it around on you: why so defensive? And what on earth does the worthiness of the goal have to do with whether it’s true or not?
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 9:42 PM
An atheistic world view does not cover all observable evidence. Atheists assume that in the future it will, faith-based thinking assume the opposite.
Spirit of 1776 on September 1, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Incidentally, for the record: the only reason you all don’t believe in Santa and eight-year-olds do is because you don’t “understand” it. How does that grab you? Like being condescended to that way?
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Welp, it was your analogy to begin with, and I’m saying it’s not a good comparison precisely because you knew your grandmother. If she had died before you were born but left a book of instructions, “To AP on How to Do What Grandma Says,” and people told you that it was your grandmother’s wishes but you had your doubts, and you went about living by the instructions anyway, that would be proof that you believed it was your grandmother’s writing despite your doubts. So I guess my first statement should be amended to say that Mother Teresa’s continued work is proof of her actual belief, despite her doubts, not necessarily evidence of his existence.
Heh. I guy I used to know called that Letter of the Law–as long as Tab A didn’t go into Slot B, you were covered. Besides, “other kinds of sex?” I doubt we want to get into that here, so let me leave that alone for now …
I didn’t say the burden wasn’t on believers to offer evidence. You mentioned the possibility of using Mother Teresa’s lack of emotional conviction of God’s reality as “proof of his nonexistence,” so I pointed out that’s really rather impossible as a concept. If the burden’s not on you, don’t try to offer proof to begin with.
Anwyn on September 1, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Hey guys,
It’s Saturday night… let’s not fight.
I heart everyone:)
terryannonline on September 1, 2007 at 9:47 PM
For the record, I’m not trying to psychoanalyze AP. Nor would I ever, ever tell somebody who doesn’t believe in God “you don’t understand.” That’s the BS AP says it is.
Anwyn on September 1, 2007 at 9:48 PM
AP, I don’t understand what you are saying.
What other possible response can be made? Is it your suggestion that in those times of testing, the proper response of that Christian is to say, “Damn! guess my God stinks, and I am going to give up this rot.” And having done that, the Pope is then to say, “Sorry folks, but Mother Teresa’s notes prove that the God that we believe in doesn’t exist.” If you ask me that is the easy way out. One of the neat things about Christianity is that it tries to make sense of the human experience in the light of God’s revealed word. And, respectfully, your listing of the Christian argument that I quoted of you above, is really a straw man. The Pope was not addressing the points you raised in the quote above. You should look at his intent in order to see if one should look for the kind of argument you are requiring.
Weight of Glory on September 1, 2007 at 9:50 PM
A Pastor who never even met the deceased person proselytizing has got to be the most obnoxious thing in the world.
If a true accounting were to ever occur (which is extremely doubtful) Atheists would be found to be the second most accepting belief on the planet behind Buddhists.
The point is all beliefs are persecuted including Atheism and whether you like it or not in everyday life Christians are not accepting of other beliefs and yes Christians persecute Atheists, there is prejudice, the workplace is one very notable example.
Speakup on September 1, 2007 at 9:50 PM
The reason you look at other people’s behavior for evidence of God is to determine if they had a direct experience of God. Mother Theresa claims she did, and she lived her life accordingly, even though there was no direct communication for most of that time. But you will never get a convincing proof looking at other people’s lives. The only way is to take the leap of faith and starting living a Godly life, and then you can look for signs in your own life. That will be far more convincing than any analysis or theorizing.
pedestrian on September 1, 2007 at 9:51 PM
I misstated, then. I can accept the argument that her lack of emotional conviction says nothing about God’s existence either way. But that’s not what the Pope is suggesting. He’s merely incorporating it into the narrative that of course God exists, and in fact the evidence of absence in this case is somehow evidence of presence, i.e. as a way of teaching her empathy for atheists. Seems … convenient.
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 9:51 PM
I think a lot of us here, and I sure do, have a lot of respect for AP and his intellectual honesty. I don’t agree with him, and I think my faith is very rational, but understand that many intelligent atheists don’t see it the same way. (Not all are as honest as you, I have to say though–truth is not their main goal, by their own admission.)
I guess I’ll just say, I hope none of my posts have sounded condescending and I apologize now if they do, because I sure don’t mean it that way, and although IMO it’d be great if you found out what I firmly believe is true, how much God loves you personally, I always respect an honest atheist.
And that is precisely why I respect your opinions so much: you know that the truth is what matters, not what is convenient or feels good or is getting you to some other goal. Keep following this love for truth and…well, I’ll leave that to you and (scuse me but I gotta say it) God to sort out.
inviolet on September 1, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Of course the Pope is going to say that God exists. What else would you expect him to say? I’m not waiting for Richard Dawkins to say “Hey, maybe God does exist.”
terryannonline on September 1, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Yes it does. But is it really “evidence of absence”? Taken in a vacuum–okay, say I die tomorrow and there’s a bunch of stuff on my hard drive like what she wrote. (There isn’t, if anybody’s curious.) Taken with my ordinary life, that would be a mere nothing and yes, maybe evidence that I was a kind of nothing Christian. But taken in the context of her life? Her life as a whole is indicative of her belief and indeed evidence that something outside her own emotions compelled her to live as she did.
I would say the truth is probably somewhere in the middle between Hitchens and the Pope.
Heh. Come to think of it that’s probably a pretty good truth about a lot of the rest of life.
Anwyn on September 1, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Or they might ask themselves is this rational or is my subconscious extrapolating and tricking me?
Then logic prevails and they throw down the BS card.
Speakup on September 1, 2007 at 9:56 PM
My disbelief in Santa wouldn’t logically deconstruct my rational faculties. If I disbelieve in a supreme supernatural creator, then all is reduced to that which is natural. If all is reduced to that which is natural then even the thoughts in our heads (”there is a God”, “there is no God”) are simply the firings of certain synapses in our heads guided by the purely mechanistic activity of genetics. If this is the case, then both propositions are equally unreliable, as well as all thoughts. Why should I believe your genetically produced synapse firings and not my own. Not believing in Santa, holds none of these problems.
Weight of Glory on September 1, 2007 at 9:58 PM
should read: why I respect YOU so much. I think your opinions are incorrect, obviously, but you are obviously intelligent and honest and hold them sincerely.
inviolet on September 1, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Well, it was known to happen to some Holocaust survivors. Granted, that’s an extreme example, but it’s a question of degree, not of principle. All I’m saying is, is there any evidence that a believer will accept as suggesting that God doesn’t exist or at least isn’t quite the hero they think? And the answer, of course, is no. Not only is there no evidence against God, but the evidence that would otherwise seem to be against God is actually evidence for God. Six million dead Jews in Germany? That’s only because God loves us so much that he lets people like Hitler have free will. Thanks, God.
That’s a very striking means-ends read on Christianity. It’s basically saying, “I like it because it gives me answers, regardless of how persuasive those answers are.” No offense, but Scientologists can say the same about Dianetics.
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 9:58 PM
I know people who lose faith when lose child. Which is probably the root cause for MT. Rooted in: How can so much suffering exist?
Spirit of 1776 on September 1, 2007 at 10:00 PM
!!! Dude, don’t you know they’ll make you give up your Libertarian card for an implication like that?
Anwyn on September 1, 2007 at 10:01 PM
I think all religions would be a lot more persuasive if they allowed for the idea that God occasionally lets us down. But almost by definition, they can’t.
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 10:02 PM
AP,
Does atheism do a better job of answering the question of human suffering?
I’m curious.
terryannonline on September 1, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Well, what do you expect the Pope to say? That “of course God doesn’t exist”?
But, seriously though, I don’t consider Teresa’s, or mine, or any believer’s doubts as “evidence of absence.” One of the central aspects of “Dark Night of the Soul” is that God is present, even when you cannot see how he possibly can be. Doubt is not evidence of absence. Feeling that God is not there is not evidence that he is not. I don’t necessarily agree with the Pope’s explanation here, by the way.
nailinmyeye on September 1, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Yeah. When you claim to know everything there is not alot of elbow room left. Which I’d guess is why Pope said what he said. But they must have been planning on using it to their benefit, else they would have respected her wishes and destroyed the papers.
Spirit of 1776 on September 1, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Some would say that the evidence for God is that Hitler proved that Satan exists and therefore God exists.
Speakup on September 1, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Well, what do you mean by “lets us down”? Do you mean that God acts in such a way that it is inherently “bad” for us? Or, do you mean that God does not necessarily act in the way in which we desire and/or wish, and hence we are intensely disappointed and even angry with God?
Because, I can definitely, definitely, grant the latter.
nailinmyeye on September 1, 2007 at 10:09 PM
No hitter in Boston, by the way. Go Sox.
nailinmyeye on September 1, 2007 at 10:12 PM
No, no. I said that it is one neat thing about Christianity. In other words, it is an aspect of Christianity that it confronts the questions. I was not making an underlying teleological argument for Christianity. If that is how it came across, then I lay it at the feet of my ability to communicate succinctly; something that both you and my wife have discovered.
Weight of Glory on September 1, 2007 at 10:15 PM
For the record, it isn’t God who let’s us down…we do that to ourselves.
JetBoy on September 1, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Should read:
This mistake, actually makes my point.
Weight of Glory on September 1, 2007 at 10:17 PM
22 year old rookie Clay Buchholz who was just called up due to an injury to Wakefield. First rookie in history to throw a no-hitter for the Sox.
TheBigOldDog on September 1, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Ps – only his second Major League start.
TheBigOldDog on September 1, 2007 at 10:22 PM
AP, it seems to me that you real issue is that you don’t like the Pope’s answer to an underlying question that you have in regards to human suffering. Theologians have understood this as the Problem of Evil. If God is omnipotent and Good, then why is there evil. For if he is omnipotent then He should be strong enough to stop evil. But evil continues, so He must not will evil to end. Thus God is not good. This has been answered by many Christian theologians throughout history, because it has always been present. Look at St. Augustine’s City of God for an answer. Also, I am sure that when he was Card. Ratzinger, he wrote on the subject extensively.
Weight of Glory on September 1, 2007 at 10:23 PM
I can think of at least one – Asaph, Psalm 73
nailinmyeye on September 1, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Yep – that kid must feel like he’s on top of the world right now.
nailinmyeye on September 1, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Again, check out the book, The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis for a more contemporary approach to the problem. Lewis actually uses the same formulations you used in expressing your frustration, and then sets out to address them. It is a smart read, I know you will like it. In fact, if you were to give Lewis a chance, I think you might find yourself liking him a whole lot. (this is all under the assumption that you haven’t read a lot of Lewis. If you have, and still have these frustrations, then I will stop all my writings to you on the subject. For if he wasn’t persuasive, I certainly won’t be.)
Weight of Glory on September 1, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Maybe I missed out on Hitchens’ contributions to intellectual thought, but as far as religion is concerned I’d rather take my missives on faith from a five year old. They have something called honesty, a trait which Hitchens does not possess. Hitchens is the classic educated idiot. He’s not contributed one iota of good to the world, so he chooses to attack others and literally drag them down to his level.
Quite frankly this banter on Mother Theresa is insulting. Can we let a dead woman rest in peace yet, or does respect for the dead something that atheists haven’t learned from Christianity yet?
BKennedy on September 1, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Because God is God. If God were not perfect, He would not be God and would not therefore be worth anything.
The idea in this whole thing is if God exists, then He’s smarter than you and everyone else in the world, just like I’m smarter than my fat cat who is a little pissed at me that I don’t feed her as much as she thinks I should.
Her life could not be more perfect. She’s fed and loved without any thought to how those things happen, because I’m there to care for her. She may disagree with me at times, getting on top of the table even though she knows it’s not cool, but that’s because she’s just a cat.
If she were my equal, I wouldn’t put a tag around her neck to make sure she can be found if she’s ever lost. But I have to do this, because I don’t trust her to be able to take care of herself alone, which is something I know she can’t do from my own experience with her.
I have let her down, but she doesn’t know the difference between times I’ve let her down and times she believes I’ve let her down.
The same works here since we don’t have the capacity to understand God. If we could, He’d fit nicely into the boxes we try to fit Him in and would actually be something of our own creation rather than the thing that created us.
You write that because you think God is the same as Santa Claus, an idea we’ve heard but not something we’ve experienced.
Liken it to the emperors clothes if you chose but understand that we feel the fabric hanging off our bodies and can see the thread intermingling to make the outfit.
I “believe” in God the same way I “believe” in my mother.
Right. You’re pissed that we sound condescending at times. What do you think those sound like?
I you did, I wouldn’t insult you, as it has nothing to do with me.
Esthier on September 1, 2007 at 10:36 PM
I’ve used that as a password. The sentiment in that chapter bothered me for much of my life, the part where I was a good kid.
Esthier on September 1, 2007 at 10:40 PM
He is smart enough to corner those he debates into the same indefensible positions. Why they let him do that is beyond me though.
Spirit of 1776 on September 1, 2007 at 11:01 PM
The question of whether God preceded man grows more irrelevant with each passing day.
JiangxiDad on September 1, 2007 at 11:01 PM
I’m glad I wasn’t in on this slapfight…
Bad Candy on September 1, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Even the greatest scientists can experience doubt in the ultimate rationality of the universe, which requires the same sort of faith that religious people place in G-d.
I’m not religious but I think that the Pope’s explanation is a pretty good one for the situation.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Oh, you simply can’t mean that!
Weight of Glory on September 1, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Facing extended suffering or great evil can lead a person into the struggle of doubt. Rather than comment on Mother Teresa or the Pope, I want to share some of my own journey with doubt, in the hope that it will give some explanation to those who are not Christians, and encouragement to those who are. I have not labored in the face of great evil as Mother Teresa did, but I have experienced personal suffering that has been both emotional and physical and of long duration.
Os Guinness, in his truly profound book, Doubt (since revised as God in the Dark), states,
The Bible is clear that Christians will suffer and that part of the reason for suffering is for the refining of their faith. The process of ridding silver and gold of their dross through refining fire is mentioned in comparison. When Christians face difficulties, a bright light is shone on what they are truly relying on in their life, the truth (not the theory) of who they understand God to be, and the reality (not the theory) of their relationship with God.
For the Christian, some of the questions to be asked and answered are, Why did I trust God when I first believed? Why do I trust Him now? Why do I go on trusting Him? Back on the monster Spencer/Derbyshire thread on August 21, 2007 at 8:10 PM & at 8:11 PM, I gave some of my reasons for belief and touched on the areas of reason, reality and relationship.
To quote Guinness again, and I do want to say that I am deeply indebted to him—his book helped me through some of my own dark hours of struggle. Another book that was very helpful to me was Francis Schaeffer’s True Spirituality, which was written in the aftermath of his going back to his own agnosticism and rethinking his reasons for belief as a Christian. Now to go back to Guinness:
Os Guinness later quotes one man’s anguish and desertion of belief in God when face to face with great evil. Guinness states:
To the unbeliever, this is incomprehensible; but for the believer, this is why we trust God; because He gave His Son to die in my place.
I have not had to walk through this valley of doubt alone. God has brought great friends into my life to show me His love through their care. The books I mentioned above were not mere acquisition of knowledge, but brought lasting change in my understanding. Paul wrote in the New Testament, “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” My time in reading and study of the Bible, alone and with others, has changed my heart and mind.
The rain has come down on me, and the floods have come up. The winds have blown and slammed against the house of my life. Jesus did not say storms would never come. He said your house is going to stand when you build your life on my words.
I can only speculate on what might have happened with Mother Teresa, but I can tell of what I have known. I do not always know why, but I know why I trust God who knows why, and that has made all the difference.
INC on September 1, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Thank you, dear brother (or sister). That was very encouraging. Again, thank you.
Weight of Glory on September 1, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Well said.
terryannonline on September 1, 2007 at 11:42 PM
An appeal to consequences doesn’t sound very rational.
VerbumSap on September 1, 2007 at 11:46 PM
I’m a sister in Christ, and I’m glad you were encouraged. We share in His comfort.
INC on September 1, 2007 at 11:51 PM
But it’s not obviously more likely to me. The two lines aren’t that different in length, but they start and end in wildly different places. God doesn’t speak to me, nor do I feel him “in my heart” or any of the rest of the more demonstrable stuff. I see the same two lines you do. But what’s obvious to me is that the world and our own intelligence and standards could not have come into being without a God to create them.
I simply don’t equate lack of emotional evidence with lack of evidence of any kind, which is what you sometimes seem to do.
Anwyn on September 2, 2007 at 12:04 AM
That’s easily debunked if you can find but one atheist that was once a Christian.
Proof of God.
SouthernDem on September 2, 2007 at 12:06 AM
My personal favorite “proof” of God is that in a universe ruled by entropy there are about 27 constants(stength of gravity, strength of electromagnetism, etc.) upon which the universe depends for stability. If any of these constants changed in even a small degree the universe would implode on itself or otherwise be destroyed by rather nasty things involving tears in the fabric of space-time. I gotta say, for such a chaotic place the underlying truths of the universe are either insanely coincidental to the point of statistical impossibility or purposefully designed. I chose option B.
BKennedy on September 2, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Believers have to put up with that same spin all the time. I’m a Christian and I’ve given up trying to defend God for his actions or inactions. God can defend Himself if He wants to. I’ve had to deal with painful heartaches in my life that have never been explained nor probably ever will be to my satisfaction. I hate it when other believers try to comfort me with those same cliche’s. The book of Job has an excellent example of three idiots who kept filling Job’s ear full of those same cliche’s while he was suffering and at no time did any of the chaos that happened to him ever get explained to him or have it shown to him that it was fulfilling some higher purposefull plan of God’s. Life sucks! I’m a believer in the Bible and I’m perfectly aware that it teaches us that God cannot lie, God never forsakes us, etc… But I also believe other promises in that same book that most believers choose to ignore…such as “For His Sake, We Are Killed All The Day Long…We’re As Sheep Led To The Slaughter”. You can’t believe in the Bible and the God who wrote it without also believing in the Devil that the Bible says is “Killing Us All Day Long” and is like a “Roaring Lion Seeking For Those Whom He Can” add chaos, pain, suffering, confusion, lies, death, lonliness, ignorance, etc…
So I guess what I’m saying to you Allahpundit is that most of today’s Christians don’t like talking about the WHOLE truth of Biblical Christianity which is why they come up with constant feelgood cliche’s. The truth is, we’re in the middle of a supernatural war that’s been going on for thousands of years and we (humanity and especialy Christians) are caught in the crossfires. And it’s going to get worse before it gets better. BUT IT WILL GET BETTER. And my comfort lies in the fact that life on Earth isn’t all there is.
I’m joining this thread a bit late and I writing too fast to know if I’m spelling correctly or even if I’m making any sense but I’m tired and going to bed.
Joshua P. Allem on September 2, 2007 at 1:04 AM
I think the reading of Job would or at least should answer all of the questions concerning Mother Teresa.
Maxx on September 2, 2007 at 1:09 AM
Yes. I come from Mathematics and think that the mathematical constants (for me, even more than the physical ones) are among the most wondrous and unusual and important objects Man has ever come across.
The opening up of the concept of infinity has also been something of pure magic. Too much beauty.
I do believe that Mathematics holds the keys to the secrets of the universe. I cannot give a rational explanation for the feeling, but I feel it in my bones.
Einstein expressed this when he said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible,” and Eugene Wigner called it, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences”.
I assume that religious people have the same sort of feeling about G-d, and it is a shame that Hitchens doesn’t get that.
Yes. It is too rational and complex and tenuous and yet perfectly assembled and simply explainable, to a great extent, in some small sets of beautiful equations. Just amazing. I don’t take path B, but it is a perfectly understandable and reasonable one.
progressoverpeace on September 2, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »