Zika and why God allows suffering

Geovane Silva holds his son Gustavo Henrique,
 who has microcephaly, at the Oswaldo Cruz Hospital
 in Recife, Brazil. REUTERS/Ueslei Marcelino
Source: Independent 

The world is on the alert for the spread of the horrifying Zika virus that has babies being born with small heads and and a poor outlook for brain development.  Thousands of these babies have been born throughout Latin America and thousands more will be, with an immense impact on the children’s lives and on their families. That is one image of suffering that we have in front of us at present.

Another image of what is harsh in life is that of rape, with the report just out in Britain that attracted headlines like “Rapes linked to online dating up by more than 450% in five years”. Further: “Every 2 minutes somewhere in the United States a woman is sexually assaulted. 1 in 4 women is a victim  of rape or attempted rape, and 75% of rapes happen when on dates”, according to the Women’s Center and Shelter of Greater Pittsburgh. This draws attention to the pure evil that can surround us.

Both of these images of the suffering world come at a time when I was fortunate enough to read a thoughtful study of God’s place in a world where disasters, acts of individual or community evil, and death afflict us. The study gives a Biblical account of suffering and a powerful message is offered to help us understand and endure suffering.

Based on the experience of the people in the Old Testament era and the knowledge of God’s ways derived from the life of Jesus, one fundamental principle arises, namely, even if God does not remove the suffering or explain its purpose, He can be trusted. A second principle is that God made a world that was good. In contrast, the human rebellion against God gives rise to much of the suffering we encounter. Moreover, human willfulness and self-centredness can preclude the intelligent preparation of safety measures as precautions against natural disasters. We can see this when people build on what is known to be a flood area, or cut costs in construction in an earthquake zone.

Whatever the cause, suffering happens. For those who do trust God, suffering of whatever kind can be a time of learning and growth, a time to develop spiritual muscle or self-rule, even though that may entail a journey through hardship or anguish. Therefore, there is value in suffering. The Father allowed His own son to suffer to accomplish the saving of everyone, to secure their redemption from a damaged form of living,  a purpose Jesus’ companions did not comprehend when Jesus told them what was about to happen to him. They understood the big picture afterward.

First, though we want answers that are not shrouded in mystery we cannot reduce God and His ways to fit into our limited human understanding. So our starting point has to be that God’s character is unchanging. First and foremost God has power over all that is in creation. God’s power is absolute and He can bring good results out of evil and suffering. I think of Peter, Paul and Mary’s song Weave Me the Sunshine, which has the words: “The tree of love grows on the bank of the river of suffering”.

Second, God can and will put a stop to evil in His perfect time. Joseph was sold by his brothers to slavery in Egypt and it took a long time to understand why God had allowed such treatment. Of course, later he understood that God intended him to save the Egyptians and his own family from death by famine. God is always doing more than we think, whether for us it’s a serious illness or the inconvenience of missing the bus.

Charlie Keilar, son of slain lawyer Brendan Keilar,
 accepts  a bravery award for his father's heroic actions
 from Victoria Governor David de Kretser. 
Photo: Joe Armao, Sydney Morning Herald

Third, God does not let us suffer needlessly. We cannot know God’s specific purpose for each hurt, but we do know God uses every kind of suffering to makes us more like Him in strength of spirit, to make us more open to others and the world around us. The widespread influence of a person who does something for others is shown by one case that has stayed in my mind from 2007, where a lawyer going to work in central Melbourne, Australia, came across a Hell’s Angels member dragging a screaming woman towards a car. He intervened, as did another man, a tourist. The abductor pulled a gun and shot the lawyer, the father of three, killing him and wounding the tourist. The city erupted in an outpouring of praise for the two who went to help the woman. A medal was given to the family to honour the heroism their husband and father had shown. The newspaper report of the medal ceremony went on to background the 53 people who had been given medals for previous acts of heroism as a wonderful example to society at large:

 “Tales of tragedy and remarkable survival were illuminated by the recipients' acts of selfless courage in a bid to save relatives, friends, workmates and strangers.  An exploding car, burning homes, rough seas, a collapsed sand cave, sinking boats and gunmen were not enough to stop the people from rushing to the aid of others.”

Finally, although the Bible teaches otherwise, we equate a smooth path in life with God’s pleasure and see difficulties as bad.  It is clearly an erroneous idea that easy and comfortable are best. Parents provide a mix of challenge and comfort for their children. So does God: “God is treating you as His sons. Has there ever been any son whose father did not train him?” (Hebrews 12:5 and Revelation 3:19). Moreover, in this way, suffering drives us deep into God’s word.

The Lima family, from left: Ana Vitoria, Viviane,
 Carlos, Maria Luiza and Julia (Photo: Bruno Kelly)

To return to my opening, the spreading Zika scourge, among all the articles describing possible causes and the impact on the often poverty-stricken parents, there have been some descriptions that can be seen as examples of the way God does train us and deepen our spirit. we see something of the truth of Paul's insight in Romans 8 that"we know that all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose". God has a plan for those who love Him, consciously of in the depth of their heart and nothing can surmount that plan; His purpose is always accomplished, no matter the trials and difficulties we face.

Britain’s Independent reports on two cases of those who have been through a life under the weight of the effects of the Zika virus. The first tells us about Ana Carolina Caceres, a 24-year-old Brazilian who was born with  a smaller-than-normal head. Her parents were warned by doctors that “she would never walk or talk, and had a slim chance of survival”. However, Ms Caceres is able to exclaim, “But I’m still here and doing more than anyone predicted.” She graduated with a degree in journalism last year and has penned a book about her life. “I’ve been suffering on the side-lines all my life, but now I’m able to tell millions of people that microcephaly is not the end of your world.”

The same Independent report also introduces the Lima family:

 Viviane Lima, 34, a Brazilian mother of three, [has] two girls born with microcephaly within the space of two years. “For the past 17 years, I have struggled to cope. Ministers are promising to support hundreds of women with healthcare and money, but we constantly have to rely on ourselves”…. Both girls, Ana Vitoria, 16 and Maria Luiza, 14, suffer from speech and cognitive problems. “Doctors told me both my children wouldn’t walk, talk or laugh. Today, Ana rollerskates and we are one big happy family on an amazing journey,” Ms Lima said.
Ms Lima’s husband Carlos, 34, stepfather to the two elder girls, knows the Zika virus is causing havoc to many, but he offered hope for those affected. “Love and patience have pulled us through and every day being father to my daughters is a fantastic experience,” he said. “One that’s changed me for the better.”

Psychiatry condemned for over-reaching

Science and its associated intellectual pursuits have long been of interest to me because of the certainty that practitioners claim and the public mostly accept about “discoveries”.  Previous posts here and here have highlighted the dangers of unchallenged acceptance of what that may turn out to be an honest misreading of evidence, perhaps a limited account of the facts, even outrageous self-promotion.  The point is, investigate all that is in the natural world, try to find ways to cure diseases of the body and the mind, but recognise the breadth and depth of the human person.

Anthony Daniels, who writes as Theodore
Dalrymple. Photo Source: Wikipedia

This time my attention turns to the medical science of psychiatry. A new book has generated pathways to information about trends in this form of health care, and these are worth taking to explore how confident we can be at the pronouncements of those prominent in the field. The book is Admirable Evasions: How psychology undermines morality, by British journalist, doctor and psychiatrist, Anthony Daniels, who writes under the name Theodore Dalrymple. The title alludes to Edmund’s lament in King Lear: “ . . . an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star.” The theme of the book is that psychiatry responds to, in fact fosters, the belief whereby people “find it easy to blame their actions on material forces in the way earlier generations blamed them on astrological forces”.
In other words, dissatisfaction with any manner of things in our life, the melancholy which may come upon us in the midst of a fruitful life, are forms of the unhappiness known through the ages, and should be faced up to as part of the demands of being a responsible person with a moral dimension. That unhappiness should not be labelled as depression, and its relief not sought on a psychiatrist's couch or by consuming drugs under the assumption that a faulty brain or its chemicals are the cause.
Condemnation - not too harsh a term -  of the present day practice of psychiatry arises, too, in an article in the New York Review of Books,  which sympathetically reports  that the authors of books under review offer “powerful indictments of the way psychiatry is now practiced. They document the ‘frenzy’ of diagnosis, the overuse of drugs with sometimes devastating side effects, and widespread conflicts of interest.” On top of that is that the benefits of the “best practice” treatment through the prescribing of psychoactive drugs, cannot be proved to be greater than the harm produced in the person seeking help.
Just as Freud has been shown to be wrong, as have behaviourists of the ilk of B F Skinner, Dalrymple vents his “own frustration with the intellectual over-reach and ‘damn lies’ told by the world of psychology”. His main point is that great literature has more to say about the suffering of the human mind and heart and soul than does the study of the brain, worthwhile though that is.  The reviewer stresses this point:

In searching the works of Shakespeare, Auden, Burgess, Blake and others, for signs of condition and predilection that psychology now calls its own, [Dalrymple] argues that the knowledge of melancholy or a dysmorphia of character can be no more informed by it than our great literary canon. Does Dr Johnson’s Rasselas,  he asks, not capture the ‘tragic dimension of human existence’ more so than modern neuroscience? 

To which the reviewer responds emphatically: “Quite!’, adding, “I have learned more about myself from Larkin, Orwell, Burke and Virgil for the simple reason that they promote self-examination, as opposed to self-obsession. A claim that psychology, our author agrees, can’t make for itself.”

Science is not all it seems

Keeping the pronouncements and declarations of scientists in real-world perspective has been one of the aims of this blog. But in these columns A problem of science  was preceded by Dali and the beauty of science. So the need to keep the scientific endeavour on track has been posed as a challenge but science  has not been mocked.

The danger of pride within the scientific community is one element that gives rise to concern; another is the scourge of a highly competitive atmosphere enveloping practitioners, whether in academia or industry. Therefore is is worth noting a piece run in The Times in December 2015. It was picked up and carried in The Australian of December 18, 2015, under the headline The science of hyperbole is now exponential. In full, that piece states:

Some researchers might call it the most outrageous affront to their profession since the trial of Galileo. That is where the problem lies.The world of science appears to have a growing addiction to hyperbole, according to an analysis of article summaries published over the past four decades. Scientists at the University of Utrecht in The Netherlands found the proportion of abstracts using 25 adjectives such as "groundbreaking", "amazing" and "spectacular" has risen almost eight-fold since the mid-1970s. 

Today's abstracts are nearly 40 times as likely to mention the word "novel" as they were in 1974. "By extrapolating...over the past 40 years to the future, we predict the word `novel` will appear in every record by the year 2123," the academics say in the British Medical Journal. It is not clear whether this surge is more of a result of competition for funding or of a ratcheting-up of hype scientists need to go through to get their papers in journals.

While books published today are marginally more likely to use one of the 25 positive adjectives than they were 40 years ago, the rise of verbal embroidery in scientific papers has been, well, staggeringly exponential. "Scientists may assume that results and their implications have to be exaggerated and overstated to get published," the authors write.

This Planet Is N0T Full

A couple with one son in Ho Chi Minh City.
Photo Nghia Pham/ Thanh Nien

A lot of people are scared that the growing world population is about to overwhelm us. These people are typically of two kinds: the first are older people of the Population Bomb era (published in 1968), and typically in developed countries; the second group are those in developing countries where the population is still growing and who see the difficulties of poor countries trying to accommodate millions moving from farms to cities.

From the views expressed in both parts of the world it is clear that there is widespread ignorance about what world and local statistics are showing us about what is really happening with regards population. It may seem amazing to many that in a highly populated (and still growing) country like Vietnam, government officials are calling on couples to have more children because the birth rate in major cities is as low as 1.3 children per woman, far below the  2.1 replacement rate, and they fear adverse economic consequences in the decades ahead.
Similarly, in Bangladesh, which has repeatedly been used as an example of a population basket case, the total fertility rate is near the simple replacement level, but lower in better-off areas. The drop in births has come despite big gaps in the use of contraception, especially with low use among the higher-income groups.

A rigorous view of how the world’s population, food supplies, and quality of life stack up is given in a book edited by Ian Goldin of Oxford University called Is The Planet Full? The collegial assessment by the scholars included in that text is that the expected peak population of about 10 billion people should be able to “equitably exist on a finite planet”. There are conditions to this optimism, however, conditions that have been the focus of those who have engaged on the world debate in previous decades to oppose the panic-stricken calls of “abort (or contracept) the savages”!
Those who have tried to defend human dignity have argued in the same way that Goldin and his colleagues do when they conclude that, given the finite planet, there must be a  deliberate redistribution of resources. Further, optimism is possible “only if our exploitative relationships between population, consumption and the environment are simultaneously addressed”, as Rebecca Jarvis observes in a London School of Economics Review of Books blog. 

God is God - I'm not!

Incorporating a religious, especially a Christian, dimension in our life is of immense value. Taking on board the spirit of the Bible, and that of Jesus, sets us free of all the distortions in our view of what is true and good and noble, and enables us to make decisions that, in reality, make our life satisfying. Here is a valuable insight into this predicament that confronts the well-being of Western society in particular:

Society, more and more, gives us license to be grandiose, to set ourselves up as the center and proudly announce that

publicly. Not only are we allowed today to get too big for our britches, we aren’t culturally admired unless we do assert ourselves in that way. And that’s a formula for jealousy, bitterness, and violence. Grandiosity and restlessness need healthy guidance both from the culture and from religion.

Today, we generally do not see that guidance. We are dangerously weak in inculcating into the consciousness of society, especially into the consciousness of the young, a number of vital human and religious truths: To God alone belongs the glory! In this life ultimately all symphonies remain unfinished. You are not the center of the earth. There is real sin! Selfishness is not a virtue! Humility is a virtue! You will only find life by giving it away! Other lives are as real as your own!

We have failed our youth by giving them unrealistic expectations, even as we are depriving them of the tools with which to handle those expectations.

[]  See also The Mess of the Post-Christian Age

A problem with science

       Detail from Salvador Dali's      
 Enigma Without End

An up-and-coming German philosopher has some critical words about the way  many in his own field and in the scientific world think about what we can know as real. Markus Gabriel, a professor of philosophy and chair of epistemology at the University of Bonn, Germany, highlights what has been been described as "the cavernous gap separating sophisticated professionals from healthy common sense".  The English translation of his book, Why the World Does Not Exist, has just been published by Polity Press.

In a review, New York academic Richard Wolin points out that Gabriel identifies particular branches of study as "inherently flawed, because their scientism — the conviction that science alone represents the royal road to truth — leaves no room for phenomena like poetry, reverie, or human intimacy, experiences that prove refractory to laws of causal determination".

"More seriously, the epistemological dogmatism of such approaches risks codifying a new species of metaphysical intolerance, since they condescendingly stigmatize competing claims as "unscientific." As Gabriel pointedly remarked in a 2014 article in Die Zeit: "At an earlier point, God and fate were invoked in order to deprive us of our freedom; today, it is ‘nature,’ ‘the universe,’ ‘the brain,’ ‘the egoistic gene’ or ‘evolution.’"

While the ordinary person welcomes Gabriel's highlighting of the intolerance of scientism, his inclusion of imagined creatures like elves or the unicorn as having the same ranking as the concrete reality around us posits little obvious change from "the ludicrousness of the cul-de-sac in which much of academic philosophy finds itself today", as Wolin puts it.
[] See also: The scourge of lying and cheating in science

Justification for Catholics and Protestants

Though the issue at the root of the Reformation was the ultimate authority in the Christian Church, whether scripture or the office of the pope as the locus of tradition, which is the content of belief in God and His church, the heart of the theological conflict was justification. The Protestants denied the value of good works in the matter of salvation, linking eternity with God after death solely to the will of God, or predestination. The Catholic response at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) was like this, as one historian describes it:

[All people] … stood condemned because of Original Sin and were saved only by the sacrifice of Christ. They had to respond freely to the offer of salvation, but the response was made possible only by “predisposing grace” that was offered to all, without any merit on their part, since God desired that all should be saved. Once accepted, such grace rendered human works meritorious in God’s sight, so that, contrary to the Lutherans, justification was not merely “imputed” to [the individual] by a merciful God, but [all people] were actually made righteous by Christ’s sacrifice.
[Everyone] could overcome sin, because concupiscence, though an ineradicable part of human nature, was merely a disposition to sin, not sin itself. As often as [people] fell, they could be raised up again, especially through the sacrament of penance, because even mortal sin caused the loss only of grace, not of faith.
Although faith was received as a gift, by cooperating with grace and performing good works, believers could grow in hope and charity and be made capable of obeying the Law. But they should also not have ‘vain confidence” that they would never lose the gift of salvation, as the Protestant doctrine of predestination implied, since, because of their free will, [all people] could either grow in righteousness or lose grace through their own fault.

James Hitchcock, 2012, History of the Catholic Church, Ignatius Press, San Francisco

Lutheran Bishop Christian Krause and Cardinal Edward Cassidy sign The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification on October 31, 1999, in Augsburg, Germany

After a long period of study and dialogue, the Lutheran World Federation and a pontifical body of the Catholic Church in 1999 presented The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which carried these statements: 

40.The understanding of the doctrine of justification set forth in this Declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics. In light of this consensus the remaining differences of language, theological elaboration, and emphasis in the understanding of justification described in paras. 18 to 39 are acceptable. Therefore the Lutheran and the Catholic explications of justification are in their difference open to one another and do not destroy the consensus regarding the basic truths.
41.Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

Though the Lutheran World Federation did not accept the declaration without some adverse votes, the World Methodist Council unanimously adopted the document in 2006. On the Catholic side, the response had a wary tone. As the Catholic negotiating party, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity had accepted the value of the consensus achieved, but the official Catholic position was that the areas of agreement were not "such as would eliminate every difference between Catholics and Lutherans in the understanding of justification". The Catholic response expressed the hope that dialogue would continue.