Hello Lucy,
-----Original Message-----
From: Lucy Masters [mailto:masters@cox-internet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:53 PM
To: Adrian Teo
Subject: Re: Darwinism/Compassion
Adrian:
Yes - I agree that we must always weigh and balance means and ends. But I
also believe, especially in the area of biology, that we must consider the
"nature" of creation (I almost hate to use the word "nature"). In other
words, it appears that God did, in fact, design the human body to die in
certain circumstances. In your analysis, death is automatically considered
an evil. But is it?
[AT] My point was not that means and ends need to be balanced - that would
be proportionalism, which I do not agree with. I believe in moral absolutes,
that there are some acts that are intrinsically evil under all conditions.
The starting point for any moral deliberation should be the object of the
act. Having said that, I do consider HUMAN death evil. I think that is much
of what the NT authors were trying to communicate, that death is the final
enemy, and will be conquered, not through our own strength, but through
Christ. I don't see how one can argue that human death is not evil and
reconcile that argument with Scripture.
Prior to modern transportation and communications, for example, an
indigenous tribe in an undeveloped land might experience, indeed did
experience, a certain level of death by starvation in relation to the number
of people born and the amount of arable land and potable water. Now, those
deaths were surely sad events. On the other hand, by experiencing that
relatively low death rate (and it was relatively low according to any
number of texts on population dynamics), these tribes were able to survive
with remaining healthy individuals who were relatively free of disease - in
large numbers.
Then along comes transportation and communication and folks around the world
decide that the death rate currently being experienced (say, around 1955) is
"evil" and must be stopped. And so we begin feeding programs. Fifty years
later, the death rate has soared exponentially as have numerous diseases and
epidemics directly related to over-crowding and insanitary conditions. In
this scenario, we did "good" in order to get rid of an "evil" and end up
with an even greater evil.
[AT] Isn't it the case that as population expands, death rates would also go
up?
In the scenario I presented, we do "evil" (if that's what you want to call
non-intervention) and end up with a fairly healthy and balanced population
without the epidemics associated with over population. AND...the scenario I
present is that granted to us through the systems of creation. I would go
so far as to say that God intended it to be this way.
[AT] We can never predict such outcomes. Nobody within reason could have
known the outcomes of those interventions at that point. Our responsibility
is to do what is right given our limited knowledge, and trust in God's
graces. In hindsight, it is always easier to see how we could have done
differently.
I do see your point, most definitely, but I also wonder about our use of the
words "evil" and "good." Is non-intervention really evil? If it is, is God
evil? He certainly doesn't intervene.
[AT] Non-intervention isn't always evil, but non-intervention in the face of
reason that tells us we should act is. How can we sit by and do nothing when
our fellow human beings are suffering and dying of starvation? We are not
called to save the world (that job has already been taken), but we are
called to bring some measure of comfort and God's love to the people put in
our paths.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 21 2002 - 12:04:33 EST