In the early 21st century, the anti-religion genre is good business. A few middle-aged, male, mostly British biologists and philosophers have demonstrated, to their satisfaction, that evolution disproves the existence of God. This, in spite of the fact that the majority of Christians themselves believe in evolution (Catholics teach it.) And also in spite of the fact that Darwin, while himself profoundly agnostic, according to his descendent/biographer, strongly disapproved of his theory being used to champion atheism.
A few literary critics, similarly, have appeared on the dialectical scene to inform us that religious institutions, and belief in God generally, have been hostile to our individual freedom and collective, intellectual development. They forget, perhaps, through whose efforts many of the greatest universities of the world came to be, as well as what social science has to say about the crucial role of social cohesion in the spread of knowledge and the crucial role of religion, historically, in that cohesion. One might even consider that, where self-discipline has been strongly correlated with a lifetime of academic and professional success, sitting through the Stations of the Cross does more for one’s intellectual capacities than the individual freedom to drop acid and dance naked in the mud at Burning Man.
But let us set these problems aside, for now.
In this most recent contribution from the literary critic James Wood, the catastrophic earthquake in Haiti is seized upon as an opportunity to write a sexy article about how opportunistically some preachers pontificate when treating tragedy. Who are his primary examples of this? Highly ranked religious officials…of the mid-18th century; Pat Robertson; a couple of Haitian passers-by, along with one Haitian bishop, and half of a line from a speech by Barack Obama.
What do all of these people have in common, according to our author? They are all participants in an “appalling discourse” involving varying degrees of “repellent cruelty.” What, then, could these people possibly be calling for? The extermination of kittens? The firing of missiles at Rainbows? Another Law and Order spin-off?
Nope. They are all participants in theodicy.
What is that, Professor Wood? You may find yourself asking. I would advise against that, because here is what Prof. Wood tells you Theodicy is: “the justification of God’s good government of the world in the face of evil and pain.” Well, if you want to be simplistic, I suppose that is true. History, and the online Catholic encyclopedia, on the other hand, tell us that: “Theodicy, therefore, may be defined as the science which treats the question of God through the exercise of reason alone.”
Now, I am all for calling out Pat Robertson when he tips over and spills his usual crazy to the benefit of no one, but to imply that he is somehow representative of the modern discourse of some fantastical Christian monolith is just a case of inaccurate coming to fisticuffs with crazy. And neither of these characters is going to help bring this ship to harbor.
So how about we inject a little reality into this critique.
The fact is that most people are not participating in the modern discourse surrounding theodicy, primarily because they don’t know what it is and have rather more important lawns to mow. And included among “most people,” if for different reasons, are all of the people hung out to dry by Wood. Here’s why:
1. Mid-18th century religious leaders, for several reasons: First, because they are dead. Second, because nine and a half out of ten people will not have heard of any of them before Wood dredged up their quotes to fit neatly into his reductionist position. It is hard to participate in an imaginary discourse when no one has heard of you. And third, because they lived in a period when medical doctors still tried to cure your gangrenous limb by bleeding you, meaning, much of what educated men had to say about a lot of things, and how they responded to devastation, was influenced by the limits of the era and so didn’t survive into modern discourse. Kant or Rousseau would have been fairer examples, though not nearly as handy as straw men.
2.The POTUS is not participating because it was probably his speechwriter who put that ‘there but for the grace of God…’ line in. Besides, in modern contexts, isn’t that often taken to mean: we sure are lucky, moreso than some deep theological inference? I don’t think every time an American utters “Oh, God” they are actually calling on God or participating in a discourse about God’s supremacy, or even believe in God. OH, also because, in spite of his purportedly fatalistic deference to the will of God (or perhaps because of it), the POTUS appears to be super busy organizing a response to the crisis in Haiti, along with about a gazillion other crises. The military, a famously conservative and religiously-dominated secular institution supplied some of the first, fatalistic boots on the ground. According to Wood’s supposition, they should just have left that labor to God. Odd that.
3. Haitian man on the street. Mostly he is probably not participating in the modern discourse on theodicy because, statistically, there is a greater-than 70% chance that he is illiterate. The author seems to suggest that one of the biggest favors we could do for this guy would be to get those silly notions of there being any comfort to be derived by using a religious mythos to understand his grief and suffering. Because that, apparently, makes all of his relatives who did not survive feel bad about themselves.
Ironically, where 90% of schools in Haiti are private, mostly Catholic, he would probably have to turn to the church to get an education sufficient to read Woods’ article at all. It’s good though, that our critic is coming up with solutions.
AntiAntiChristianity 