Reflections on “Closer To Truth” During the Pandemic
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
Never before have we all been so similar. When should we get groceries? How much toilet paper do we have left? Why is my mask fogging my glasses? And if these be our worries during the pandemic, we are the lucky ones.
I have been writing and hosting Closer To Truth (CTT) for over 20 years — PBS/public TV stations (U.S.); Closer To Truth website; Closer To Truth YouTube channel — and never before have I felt as close to the CTT community, who are passionate in their pursuit of science and religion (with diverse interests and views, of course).
I’ve come to see that there is a small subset of humanity whose members seem preternaturally predisposed to be fascinated by, or obsessed with, the kinds of big questions we feature on CTT: Cosmos (philosophy of cosmology, philosophy of physics, cosmology, multiverse, quantum physics, mathematics, time, information, fine-tuning, philosophy of science, science & religion, metaphysics, why something/nothing, critical thinking); Consciousness (philosophy of mind, mind-body problems, brain/mind, brain function, mental activity, essence of consciousness, personal identity, free will, subconscious, life after death, alien intelligences, diverse intelligences, parapsychology, cosmos & consciousness, critical thinking); Meaning/God (philosophy of religion, philosophical theology, existence/non-existence of God, traits/nature of God, theism, atheism, agnosticism, alternative concepts of God, critical thinking).
Closer To Truth website: >4,000 videos of scientists and philosophers.
Closer To Truth YouTube: >1000 videos, currently uploading CTT TV episodes. Monthly stats: >1.2 million views, >14 million minutes watch time; 60% outside US, including 10% UK; 140,000 subscribers — reflecting growing interest in big questions, perhaps enhanced by pandemic reflections (and “free time”).
Members of our little group come from diverse religions, regions, races, countries, ethnicities, genders, ages, educational levels, income levels — the only thing we all have in common is the pursuit of these questions. But that “only thing” is a Big Thing — only those fascinated or obsessed know how truly Big it is. Some of us have felt isolated — until we discover that there are others of our kind. Indeed, our ISSR community is a core.
The pandemic is tragic, but the lockdown, ironically, has its benefits. Physical confinement can facilitate mental freedom. Our minds can wander and wonder and we do not feel guilty that we are not out “working”.
During this strange time, Closer To Truth is receiving more feedback on the CTT website and more comments on CTT YouTube. I read all the feedback and I browse through the comments, especially those under CTT TV episodes. I appreciate them all, including when challenging or critical.
I pay attention when viewers seem sure that I believe this or I do not believe that. Sometimes, seriously, I don’t know what I believe. But I do care. Deeply.
I’m pleased that some of my favorite CTT TV episodes — for example, “Big Questions in Free Will”, “Why Anything At All?”, “What Exists?” — are hits with viewers. My curiosity is piqued when under the same CTT episode (on, say, consciousness or materialism or theism/atheism), one comment will deride me for not believing and another will disparage me for believing.
All I can affirm is that my quest is real: I try to see the world, sense reality, objectively and honestly. I like to challenge conventional wisdom, but only if coherent. I can explore odd ideas, but I’m not comfortable with sloppy arguments. I am determined to keep an open mind — with at least one eye unblinking and skeptical.
During these pandemic weeks, I had a friend of 50 years die, and my daughter had her first child (one month short of her 49th birthday, from her 10-year-old frozen egg, husband couldn’t stay in hospital — new mom and son home and healthy. I’ve studied biology my entire life and still I find myself flabbergasted.) The cycle of life, more poignant in the lockdown.
For CTT producer/director Peter Getzels and me, Closer To Truth is our adventure of a lifetime and we feel privileged to share our work with CTT’s friends and visitors.
We do not claim to always know truth. Our pledge is that we try to always get closer.
Dr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn
Host and creator, Closer To Truth
Cross-Cultural Conversations in an Hour of Crisis [1]
Anindita Balslev
The social isolation induced by the corona pandemic has created an opportune moment for fresh reflection on a range of concerns. The ‘boundary’ – not only between the ‘personal’ and the ‘collective’ but also that between one collective and another – suddenly appears to be fuzzy in the face of a common enemy, a virus. Indeed, the impact of Covid-19 is not felt exclusively to be a matter of a health issue, but as a poignant indicator of the major asymmetries that vitiate our social landscape in a global context.
The need for CCC could perhaps at no time in history be more intensely appreciated than at present. CCC is an abbreviation for ‘Cross Cultural Conversation’, which I use as an umbrella term. ‘CCC’ is not meant exclusively to designate a conversation between huge aggregates of cultures for which the conventional practice is to use such nomenclatures as East and West, or for that matter North and South with special connotations. CCC is conceived as a program that seeks an open exchange between diverse groups and sub-groups, located in the center and periphery of any given national or international setting, concerning various cultural practices.
Thus, if it is asked what it is that we are seeking ‘to cross’ by engaging in this endeavor, and whom we expect to meet on the other side, the answer lies in becoming aware of the ‘we’ and ‘they’ categories that incessantly occur in multiple socio-historical contexts of public discourse, always implying – overtly or covertly – a sense of boundary. There are, indeed, many criteria that are employed in order to demarcate huge aggregates of humanity for the sake of forming groups and sub-groups, cutting across the boundaries of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality and many more. In fact, we keep inventing these criteria for various cultural purposes.
Let us note here that ‘boundary’ is only a metaphor that can be used in a soft and a hard sense. The soft sense of the metaphor indicates that there is a border that enables us to speak of our own ‘distinctness’ by distinguishing it from that of others and allows us to acknowledge the validity of diversity and differences. However, in its hard sense the metaphor of boundary implies a barrier, where crossing is, as it were, trespassing.
Thus, to put it briefly, ‘Cross Cultural Conversation’ (CCC) is to be treated as a project that seeks to re-design and ameliorate human interrelationships on multiple levels of social transactions. This is a space for considering whether we can deal with the discontent and violence in the public sphere of our collective life by ‘softening’ some of those hard boundaries that which often radicalize the ‘we and they divide’. This is why CCC is not a project for speaking among ourselves about the ‘otherness’ of others, where the ‘other’ is not even required to be present, nor is it speaking to the other where the other remains merely a passive listener. On the contrary, it is engaging each other in an open conversational setting on a range of issues that are of concern to all the conversational partners from within and without the academia.
We are living in an era in which the nation-state system of governance is preponderant in the global context in spite of all cultural differences, and where all nations aspire to share advanced scientific knowledge and technology with the hope of a better future. However, not enough investment has yet been made to bring about a more inclusive society that could enhance a sense of ‘solidarity-in-diversity’, which our current situation badly demands.
The more the virus is spreading in all possible directions, showing its utter disregard for man-made hard boundaries, the more our inequities and vulnerabilities are becoming glaringly visible. Daily reports, for example, are not only telling us about the death toll and the recovery rates along with the number of people affected by the virus in various parts of the globe, but are also laying bare some of the existing disparities that our prevalent social, economic and political institutional systems are failing to address. Today, when scientific technology has furthered the dissemination of information worldwide in an unprecedented manner, we all know that the suffering of people, who were already afflicted by hunger and poverty, has increased to a colossal degree. We learn how the lockdown has brought utter misfortune to daily wage earners, placing them and their families in utterly miserable situations, while some of the billionaires have added a few more billions to their fortunes during the very same period. It is shocking to find that at a time when millions are adversely affected by the corona virus, the discontents and prejudices associated with the themes of race and religion are also getting drawn into public life, making the present miserable scene even worse.
Ideological battles keep changing from one phase of history to another. Evidently, the way cultural diversity has been perceived and theorized gets reflected in our political actions. We need CCC precisely in order to create a conceptual space for registering voices from multiple disciplines and various walks of life for obtaining a realistic comprehension of the complexities of contemporary life. Indeed, this is indispensable for fostering a sense of solidarity-in-diversity, which is the best safeguard for not losing sight of the overlaps in our common concerns and goals, often side-lined by seasoned politicians. The pandemic we are all in provokes us to ask many interesting and hard questions in our globalized world – a world that lacks a philosophy of globalism.
Obviously, the ability to crisscross the globe alone does not automatically give the tools for resolution of conflicts: a change of mind-set is needed for that. This calls for a discernment of shared values across cultures. In this connection, it is worth noting that the religions of the world still remain the primary source from which millions derive their norms and guidelines, despite the spread of many anti-religious ideologies – be that in the name of science or politics. Moreover, the demographic composition of societies across cultures – especially in the urban settings – are now steadily assuming a multi-religious character that certainly has significant socio-political implications. The urgency to cultivate a sensibility for respecting the multiple social identities of every individual viz. national, ethnic, gender, religious etc. is acute.
Under these circumstances, the inter-relationship between science and religion has assumed special significance, especially since there are profound ethico-religious challenges associated with our newly obtained technological capabilities. Our cumulative experience has shown that any tacit assumption on behalf of either science or religion to be an exclusive source of wisdom rests more on prejudice than knowledge.
Scientific knowledge and technology have enabled extraordinary feats of achievements and thereby earned the admiration that such an enterprise deserves, while also provoking both fear and anxiety in the face of possible for abuse of the same for committing violence. We seem to have reached a stage at which a report of a massive earthquake or of a sudden spread of a pandemic arouses the suspicion – rightly or wrongly – of possible human intervention as a cause for these mishaps. We are apprehensive since we know that the same technology can serve as a tool both for benevolent and malevolent purposes.
We know that the channels of communication used in the service of liberal democracy can equally be employed in support of fascist regimes or dictatorships, for propagating genuine or fake news.
Again, even if we are aware that religious traditions continue to be a potent force in shaping our civilizational goals, an authentic meeting of the religions of the world can hardly be said to have taken place. Religious differences are still major issues in many conflict-ridden areas.
However, ours are not exclusively perilous times, but also an era of hope. We today have more favourable circumstances than ever to access the historical and cultural resources that lie embedded in our cumulative civilizational experiences and can appraise – based on a wealth of information – the consequences of perpetuating a divisive system of ‘we and they’ along the lines of race and religion, nationality and ethnicity, gender, wealth and health as well as other criteria of group-formations in an extreme radical manner.
As we engage in CCC, we not only learn what we did not know about each other so far, but can also unlearn the prejudices with regard to the ‘otherness’ of others that are often handed down from one generation to another.
This process can bring about colossal changes on both conceptual and institutional levels, which is absolutely necessary if we are to stop the abuse of religious diversity or use of scientific technology for destructive purposes. Time is ripe to gather force for imagining a new phase of human civilization that simply shuns the polarities of the ‘winners and losers’, ‘exploiters and exploited’ or the ‘dominant and marginalized’ that are still prevalent in multiple social contexts in the global scenario. CCC is crucial for figuring out how to introduce a new spin in the dynamics of the ‘self and the other’.
[1] Anindita N. Balslev, Cross-cultural Conversation: A New Way of Learning, Routledge, 2000
Anindita N. Balslev
M.A. (Calcutta), Ph.D (Paris)
aninditabalslev@hotmail.com
A non-anthropocentric theological perspective of the pandemic*
Lucio Florio
Current scientific mentality prevents appealing to simplistic solutions to consider the pandemic. After the “Great Lisbon Earthquake” of 1755, was questioned the “theodicy” or defense of God -term created by Leibnitz to call theology natural in 1710-. The earthquake, which left almost 100,000 dead, shook the believing thought of the time. But things have changed from the epistemological point of view. Questions about the natural phenomena are asked primarily in the scientific field, out of the competence of the theology. In fact, those who today investigate the origin of the spread of the virus, its nature, its effects, its possible therapy, are the sciences. In this matter, God and theology have nothing to do: he cannot be held responsible for the pandemic
However, science also remind us of another fact, less tangible in times of emergency: the biosphere is composed not only by the Homo sapiens, but also by millions of species of living beings or nearby behaviors -and others with behaviors similar to what we understand by “life”, as the viruses. We have evolved “from” and “with” these living beings. In addition, we live intimately with many of them, and in an interrelated way with the rest. From this point of view, it is clear that we are not the only living beings on the planet, and that coexistence (Darwin dixit!) is partially violent, because natural selection is an essential part of the life process. In this context, it is undeniable that the viruses have the same right to struggle for survival than other beings like the humans.
The viruses, beings dependent on other life forms to subsist, are within the only biosphere. Evolutionary biology reminds us that we are not alone on this planet but that we coexist, dynamically and at times violently, with other species, also they originated in the evolutionary history of the biosphere. Curiously, biblical theology says something similar. For example, Gen 1,1-4ª maintains that living beings were created as distinct from man, being considered, too, good or valuable. Creation, then, includes many diverse beings. On the other hand, the theology of the last centuries has tempered its anthropocentric vision because sciences has pushed it to that: heliocentrism has descended man from the central place in the cosmos; the evolutionism has taken humans away from the center of the process of the life; psychology has moved out from the consciousness to a part of the free decisions; genetics has equated human genomic information with the genetic information of many living things; etc. In addition, the present ecological crisis reinforces the non-anthropocentric vision of the planet, precisely because the human species is in the process of annihilating much of the other species. For the theology of the last decades, because of these reasons, the place of the human being in creation has been more focused on his relationship with God than on his ontology. Indeed, for the Bible, human being is a very particular “you”; someone with whom God enters into an alliance and in whom he has become trough the incarnation. However, the rest of the living beings have not been excluded of the creative and salvific plan. Indeed, all creation is waiting (Rm 8, 18-23) and will be called to participate in the new heavens and the new earth (2 Pt 3,2; Ap 1,1).
This convergence between science and theology leads us to ask this question: how can we think the advance of the viral universe on a species, Homo sapiens? This question is paradoxal if we consider the human, i.e., a species equal to the rest of beings from the scientific perspective but a privileged entity according to the biblical vision?
Short conclusion
The plagues are episodes in the history of the biosphere. From this scientific and historical point of view, they are part of the dynamic interactions among the beings on the planet. But humans do not consider us as a species more. In particular, the Western tradition has understood that humans are original beings in the biosphere, endowed with conscience and reflection. The concept of “person” has been a semantic channel of such conviction. Likewise, the believers of the Biblical roots confessions refer to the particular consideration of a God who creates distinguishing the human creature and who endorses such option through his humanization in Christ. From that point of view they look at the threat of a plague. They do so with a reading key: the providential action of a God who has manifested a certain predilection for the human being, although in a broader project that includes the entire universe.
The pandemic is presented as a phenomenon that must be understood by the sciences. But it also appears as a fact that needs a deeper interpretation which can give the experimental sciences. Its dimensions and consequences make an interdisciplinary interpretation necessary. In this sense, the conjunction between science and religion must offer an integrated vision of a reality that would contrary, seems to emerge as a logical absurdity. The plague, then, is a sign that needs to be interpreted from science and from theology. Only thus can intuit something of the mysterious challenge of this time in which we live.
* This text is part of an article: L. Florio, “La teología en clave teológica no antropocéntrica”, Criterio 2468 (2020), 10-13, Buenos Aires: https://www.revistacriterio.com.ar/bloginst_new/2020/05/18/la-pandemia-en-clave-teologica-no-antropocentrica/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RevistaCriterio+%28Revista+Criterio%29&fbclid=IwAR32164zN1Pl3PNv3NAe7KpR97EerFfAnmoVqfqoHlUQWeDAjFRe1Okff2c
Dr. Lucio Florio
(La Plata, Argentina)
God’s Will and the Coronavirus
Thomas Jay Oord
I’m not surprised some people are blaming God. Maybe “crediting” God is more accurate.
I’m reading social media posts saying the Coronavirus (Covid 19) is God’s will. Our current suffering is part of some predetermined divine plan.
One post put it this way:
“Sorry to break up the big panic, but the Coronavirus will not take anyone outta this world unless that’s the good Lord’s plan. And you’re not gonna change that no matter what you do or what you buy.”
If this view is true, no need to worry. No need to prepare, defend, protect, sacrifice, or act. It’s all in “the good Lord’s plan.”
Not the Plan!
I don’t believe the Coronavirus is God’s plan. God is not causing a pandemic that kills some, makes many miserable, and has widespread adverse effects on society.
God did not cause this evil!
Those who say, “God is in control” often claim all that happens, good or bad, is part of a master plan. Every torture, murder, rape, disease, war, and more are part of the divine blueprint.
Your sister’s rape? God’s plan. That miscarriage you suffered? God’s plan. Every ruthless dictator or fascist system? God’s plan. Cancer, meth addiction, leukemia, severe disability, and so on? God’s plan.
The Coronavirus? God’s plan.
I don’t buy it. I can’t believe a loving God would design that kind of plan! If that’s what God’s love is like, I want nothing to do with God!
God Allows the Virus?
Fortunately, a large number of people today reject the idea God is causing the current pandemic. Unfortunately, a large number believe God allows or permits it.
Does that make sense?
Those who say God allows evil imply God could stop it singlehandedly. If God wanted, God could end this pandemic with a solo act of control. For some reason, say these people, God is allowing death, illness, and widespread harm.
Suppose one of my kids began strangling another of my children. Suppose I could step in and stop this act of violence. But suppose I allowed it – and the death of my child – saying, “I didn’t cause this killing, so don’t blame me!”
No one would consider me a loving father if I failed to prevent the evil I could have prevented. Fathers who allow their kids to strangle one another are not loving.
Those who say God permits the Coronavirus make a major mistake. They undermine our belief in a perfectly loving God. Just as a loving father wouldn’t allow his kids to strangle one another, a loving God wouldn’t allow a virus to wreak widespread death and destruction.
It makes no sense to say, “It isn’t God’s will, but God allows it.”
“See the Good that’s Come…”
Many who claim God causes or allows the Coronavirus will see some good that comes from our current crisis. They’ll point to stories of self-sacrifice or the good that comes from people cooperating to combat this pandemic.
Upon seeing the good that comes from the pandemic, some will use a “greater good” argument. “We’ve learned something valuable from the Coronavirus!” they might say. “This pandemic has taught us we don’t need all the stuff we thought we needed.” “It took a virus for us to learn to slow down and focus on what’s important.”
Good things will come from the evils we currently face. Count on it. But we shouldn’t say God causes or allows evil for this good. It isn’t part of some predetermined plan.
Instead, we should think God squeezes some good from the bad God didn’t want in the first place.
God never gives up on anyone or any situation. Working with a broken and diseased creation, God works to wring whatever good can be wrung from the wrong God didn’t cause or allow.
It’s a Mystery
A growing number of people recognize the theological problems that come from saying God caused or allowed the Coronavirus. Instead of offering a better way to think about God’s action, however, they appeal to mystery.
“We don’t know why God acts this way,” they say. Some of the more sophisticated thinkers will say God doesn’t “act” in any way we can understand. What it means to say “God acts” is an absolute mystery. Finite beings can’t in any sense understand an infinite God, they say.
Others play the mystery card by saying God is uninvolved. Deists say God created the world long ago but now has a hands-off approach. This God watches the world from a distance as it suffers. This God has the power to stop the mayhem but sits on the sideline eating popcorn.
I wonder why anyone believes in a God of absolute mystery. If we can’t provide plausible answers to our deepest struggles and biggest fears — including the Coronavirus — why believe in God at all?
If God’s ways are not our ways, no way is as good as any other.
NT Wright on the Coronavirus
In a recent Time article titled, “Christianity Offers No Answers About the Coronavirus. It’s Not Supposed To,” NT Wright makes some statements with which I can agree. But I don’t agree with his main point.
Wright begins his little essay by referring to the Christian practices of Lent. He rightly calls some explanations for God’s relation to the Coronavirus “silly.” He rejects the idea God is punishing us, warning us, or giving a sign by sending this pandemic.
I agree with Wright that God is not causing the pandemic for some higher purpose. We should not “explain” suffering as God orchestrated. The Coronavirus isn’t part of some divine blueprint. I also agree when Wright says our suffering grieves God. God is “in the tears of Jesus and the anguish of the Spirit,” as he puts it. “God also laments,” says Wright.
Perhaps my favorite line is this: “Some Christians like to think of God as above all that, knowing everything, in charge of everything, calm and unaffected by the troubles in his world. That’s not the picture we get in the Bible.”
I couldn’t agree more!
Lament
Instead of searching for answers to God’s will and the Coronavirus, Wright says our response should be to lament. The essay’s final paragraph provides his central argument:
“It is no part of the Christian vocation, then, to be able to explain what’s happening and why. In fact, it is part of the Christian vocation not to be able to explain—and to lament instead. As the Spirit laments within us, so we become, even in our self-isolation, small shrines where the presence and healing love of God can dwell. And out of that can emerge new possibilities, new acts of kindness, new scientific understanding, new hope.”
I agree lament can be a place “where the presence and healing love of God can dwell.” And from this place, I think new possibilities, acts of kindness, scientific understanding, and new hope can emerge. God can squeeze some good from lament.
But do we have to choose between lament and explanation?
I Disagree…
“Always be ready to give an account of the hope that is within you,” says the Apostle Peter (1 Pt. 3:15). I take this verse to mean we should seek explanations for what God might be doing during this pandemic. I find numerous biblical passages explaining God’s action in response to suffering.
Most of the explanations I’m encountering today for what God is doing are “silly.” I don’t think God sends the Coronavirus to punish or teach us a lesson. God has not caused and is not allowing the virus to kill, harm, and cause havoc.
God is not in the evil business.
But it is part of the Christian tradition to offer a plausible explanation to what’s happening. It’s part of being Christian to seek believable answers to the “why” questions. It’s part of being a Christian to give an account of the hope we have.
We should lament the suffering in our world. But we can simultaneously seek answers to why God doesn’t prevent suffering in the first place!
God’s Uncontrolling Love
The explanation I find most helpful to God’s relation to the pandemic says God is not in control. In fact, God can’t control. God is not to blame, because God is neither causing nor permitting the pandemic, as if God could stop it singlehandedly.
The pandemic solidifies our need to rethink God’s power in light of God’s love.
My reasoning rests on the logic of love. I think God loves everyone and everything. And God’s love is always uncontrolling. Consequently, God can’t control anyone or anything.
Not even God can stop the Coronavirus singlehandedly.
Instead of appeals to mystery or only lamenting the suffering we endure, Christians can say God suffers with us and cares for us. And God cannot singlehandedly prevent the Coronavirus as it wreaks havoc.
The God I am describing is not watching from a distance, eating popcorn. Instead, God actively fights against evil. But God needs cooperation from creatures and creation for love to win. In this time of struggle, God needs the best of medicine, the best from social leaders, and the best from each of us.
I call this view “the uncontrolling love of God,” and I’ve written academic and popular books explaining its details. (See my best-selling book, God Can’t: How to Believe in God and Love after Tragedy, Abuse, and Other Evils or my more academic book, The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence.)
The uncontrolling God of love is the most potent force in the universe! But because love does not force its own way (1 Cor. 13:5), even the strongest Lover cannot control others.
God’s Will for Us
What is God’s will? In one sense, it’s the same today as every day: to love God, love others, and ourselves. That’s God’s general will.
In our current crisis, God’s specific will changes. God calls each person, each family, each community, and each political structure to unique responses of love. These specific calls are particular to what each creature can do in each situation. God calls us all to act in loving ways in light of what’s possible.
For most, social distancing can be a significant form of love. Sharing provisions – including toilet paper – can be another. Cooperating with health officials can be a powerful expression of love. Taking reasonable precautions can be an act of love. And so on…
We cannot win without God’s empowering love. But God needs our cooperation to overcome this evil. We should admit God cannot prevent evil singlehandedly.
God is working against the Coronavirus. And God calls you, me, and all creation to overcome evil with love. Our present crisis presents new challenges in discovering what love now requires.
Thomas Jay Oord, Ph.D.
Director, Doctoral Program at Northwind Theological Seminary/C4ORT
Director, Center for Open and Relational Theology
