In an age of quasi-frequent catastrophic occurrences, grief and sorrow run prevalent on international news feeds. Those directly affected as well as those observing from afar, attempt to grapple with the complexity of suffering and the role of the supernatural in their anguish. The Doors of the Sea, written by David Bentley Hart, utilizes the 2004 tsunami in order to help the reader grasp the foundational quandary between human suffering and the problem of evil. I hope to achieve three primary objectives in this essay: briefly summarize Hart’s work, identify the major theme of free will and its influence on human suffering before pointing out the greatest rift in this supposed correlation, and conclude with the influence the book had on me
…show more content…
Hart briefly correlates Voltaire’s reference of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake to this conflict before thoroughly outlining the argument of Ivan Karamazov in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel. Hart addresses these viewpoints by inserting his view on evil as the deprivation of good. While suffering can occasionally be explained as a positive force being exerted on individuals, Hart mentions the New Testament as proof that suffering has, “No true meaning or purpose at all” (35). Expounding on the purpose of evil, Hart inserts a free will stance demonstrating how creation in its current state is not the creation that God formed at the beginning of time. Based on Hart’s employment of free will along with his explanation of evil, Hart affirms the belief that cataclysmic events—such as the 2004 tsunami—are in direct opposition to God’s will and in due time; God will reverse the current trend and replace it with something new. The topic of Easter and its significance also occupies primacy in the action of addressing this corrupted world. Hart employs Scripture in order to pinpoint God’s goodness directed towards mankind before delving into a discussion on human suffering and the form …show more content…
He closes the book by clarifying: “God will not unite all of history’s many strands in one great synthesis, but will judge much of history false and damnable” (104). Hart states that this is the case due to the free will, which God has given to mankind. However, while this explanation vindicates evil when performed by humans, it does little to address the issue of evil in regards to natural disasters. Human choice—from my perspective—cannot be directly linked to natural disasters and the evil and suffering that may result from them. Hart seems to suggest that the free will of mankind can draw individuals outside of God’s will and in so doing into suffering and angst. Is there a way that human choice correlates to natural disasters via means of karma or a similar phenomenon? If yes, what is this correlation? If not, how can “natural” evil be rationalized in a seemingly innocent individual? Unfortunately, this approach, as is, can only stand when related to suffering brought about by human forces. Without this correlation, the entire premise of free will influencing suffering is broken when suffering comes from natural or environmental
Hart briefly correlates Voltaire’s reference of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake to this conflict before thoroughly outlining the argument of Ivan Karamazov in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel. Hart addresses these viewpoints by inserting his view on evil as the deprivation of good. While suffering can occasionally be explained as a positive force being exerted on individuals, Hart mentions the New Testament as proof that suffering has, “No true meaning or purpose at all” (35). Expounding on the purpose of evil, Hart inserts a free will stance demonstrating how creation in its current state is not the creation that God formed at the beginning of time. Based on Hart’s employment of free will along with his explanation of evil, Hart affirms the belief that cataclysmic events—such as the 2004 tsunami—are in direct opposition to God’s will and in due time; God will reverse the current trend and replace it with something new. The topic of Easter and its significance also occupies primacy in the action of addressing this corrupted world. Hart employs Scripture in order to pinpoint God’s goodness directed towards mankind before delving into a discussion on human suffering and the form …show more content…
He closes the book by clarifying: “God will not unite all of history’s many strands in one great synthesis, but will judge much of history false and damnable” (104). Hart states that this is the case due to the free will, which God has given to mankind. However, while this explanation vindicates evil when performed by humans, it does little to address the issue of evil in regards to natural disasters. Human choice—from my perspective—cannot be directly linked to natural disasters and the evil and suffering that may result from them. Hart seems to suggest that the free will of mankind can draw individuals outside of God’s will and in so doing into suffering and angst. Is there a way that human choice correlates to natural disasters via means of karma or a similar phenomenon? If yes, what is this correlation? If not, how can “natural” evil be rationalized in a seemingly innocent individual? Unfortunately, this approach, as is, can only stand when related to suffering brought about by human forces. Without this correlation, the entire premise of free will influencing suffering is broken when suffering comes from natural or environmental