A video featuring Stephen Fry is going viral. In it he condemns the Christian faith because of the presence in the world of natural evil. As one who takes Christian apologetics seriously, I want to reply and will be posting this on his twitter feed later.
Dear Mr. Fry,
I came across an interview in which you were asked what you would say to God? The answer you gave was clever, which is unsurprising given your clear intellectual gifts, but also unfairly damning. As a priest, who loves the God you denounce, I want to respond. Not to proselytise or dismiss your argument but to offer a different perspective and help you and others understand the value of the faith I seek to follow.
In your response you pointed to “natural evil” as the reason you dismiss the notion of a loving God. As a self proclaimed atheist you are wise to hone in on this for there is no denying that natural evil is a tricky issue for believers. There is no glib or easy answer to the question of why God, if he exists, allows suffering.
It is not, however, a new question or one that has been ignored by people of faith. Indeed the book of Job, the earliest of all in the bible, tackles this question head on even if in a way that proves unsatisfactory for modern debate. That is with the heart not the head- it’s conclusion being that to experience the love of God, seen in the theophany granted Job, is to satisfy all doubt and fear.
Since Job was written, many other great thinkers have tackled the issue. I commend ‘the problem of pain’ by C. S. Lewis which sets out a robust response but there are others. Ultimately some Christians have concluded this world is broken and reflects our fallen nature. Others imagine natural evil highlights to us a need for something more than this world- a fallen world creating a hunger for heaven. But I confess that neither of these answers goes far enough.
Perhaps it is best then for the Christian to humbly accept the limitations of our knowledge at this point. Which is what Pope Benedict XVI did, in 2011, when he was asked why children suffer illness. He admitted he asks the same question and has no easy answer beyond noting that the God of Christianity is one who himself suffered unfairly and tries to turn our suffering into victory through the cross of Christ and the message of Easter.
Might we be looking at the question the wrong way round then? Should we ask why other great thinkers, given that they have stumbled on the same problem, have not felt the need to dismiss God? Why have they nevertheless stood by the Christian claim?
In part it is because simply removing God from the equation does nothing whatsoever to eradicate the problem of suffering in this world. What we cut off when we dismiss God is not the problem of evil so much as our means of salvation from it. And this is a point writ large in history.
Both the French and Russian Revolutions, for example, encouraged violent rejection of Christ in the firm belief this would usher in a new Age of Enlightened Reason. It did not. It ushered in a reign of brutal terror, a destructive vortex of madness and death. In Nazi Germany, it was believed the substitution of Christianity with neo-paganism would give rise to a master race. It did not. It led to the unspeakable horrors of Auschwitz. And in Communist Russia, once Christianity was eradicated, along came the gulag and more indescribable human suffering.
I hope you don’t mind me sharing with you then that I find the banal destruction, wherever man has abandoned God (yes within the church as well as without!) to be every bit as infuriating as the cases you note of worms digesting eyes. And I cannot help but note also, that whilst there have been many sinners who discredit the church, those who have lived by its teaching, the Saints, are unparalleled examples of living virtue in history. Proof, I would argue, of what faith can do to save us from ourselves. It seems to perfect the virtue that is open to us all.
So let me, in the interests of fairness, briefly underline the huge contribution to life we discover wherever Christian faith has been allowed to flourish. You are known as an advocate of inclusion, toleration, respect and freedom. Are these not values stemming from a Judeo-Christian tradition? It was Catholic culture that gifted England its hospitals, historic schools and Cambridge and Oxford University. It was Christian culture that gave us everything from the architecture of our great Cathedrals to the paintings of Carravagio.
But this artistic flourishing has rather dwindled as the Christian heritage has weakened. I don’t know about you, but I am of the opinion that Tracey Emin’s unmade bed, a fruit of modernist culture, cannot hold a candle to the works of Michelangelo, fruits of Christian culture. And today the world over it is the Church that continues to feed, clothe and care for more people each day than any other institution or organization. Despite its many well publicised faults.
Noting these gifts is not a flippant point. For if we remove our Judeo-Christian values and beliefs from modern society, the values that inspired the creation of the West, then what do you propose we put in their place? A serious question as we try to navigate through a modern landscape that seems economically, spiritually and morally bankrupt. When you burst the Christian bubble what else do you offer the many people who look to you in modern life? I ask by way of warning. For it strikes me that modern liberal secular values are only found where they parasitically feed of a dying Christian culture. The values they espouse having been taken from the very Christian culture they seek to destroy. It is a path to nihilism.
Which is not to suggest Christianity is perfect. I know full well it isn’t. God, rather foolishly it seems to me, placed his church in the hands of fallible humanity. And those people, from Judas Iscariot to the weak vessel that is me, have so often let him down- and dreadfully. I take solace therefore that the Church is not a club for the pious but a hospital for sinners. A club for hypocrites that says “join us Stephen- because we always have room for one more!”
But despite these faults it is also a place in which people are loved and held to be sacred. And despite the hideous blots on our copy book, which our sins represent, the fact remains that human civilisation has soared under the influence of Christianity. Why then dismiss it all simply because of the existence of natural evil? Would we throw away a beautiful novel, one imbued with truth, simply because one section proved hard for us to understand?
And if natural evil is a thorn in the Christian’s side, so moral evil is a thorn in the atheist’s side! For if there is no God and we are, as Darwin and Nietzsche suggest, cells with no purpose beyond procreation and existence, then why complain as you did? What possible meaning does life have? Why not cull in concentration camp or gulag? Why not kill those who contribute little but use up resources? Why not let the worm eat the eye? If we stop upholding the sanctity of life, a clearly theistic notion, then what possible reason do we have to be angry? It is simply what it is.
But that doesn’t seem to be what you actually believe. For it is obvious from your emotional response that you actually hold life to be precious. Your rage at the worm suggests you see something infinitely precious in humanity that makes it worthy of dignity, protection and care. Good for you! Christians agree and include you in that number. But Stephen….
…why rail against God if you don’t believe in him? I cannot imagine getting cross with a creature I believed mythical, say a unicorn or pixie! No, the emotion you display is only rationally, surely, if delivered to a living agent you do suspect might just be there.
Perhaps then it is not that you disbelieve in God, so much as feel anger towards him and what you think he has revealed? If so I urge you to look again and see not only our grot but also our glory. For there must clearly be something of value in a Catholic church that has lasted two thousand years, which comprises 1.4 billion members and which has outlived every regime that ever sought to destroy it.
With best wishes
Father Ed Tomlinson
PS: We do agree on one thing. I too support Norwich City. And does this fact not hand me the victory in debate? For here is proof beyond doubt that you, Stephen Fry, are quite capable of applying hope and faith in the face of tremendous uncertainty!
To compare Tracey Emin to Michelangelo is just silly and undermines your argument. I don’t happen to believe that Margaret Rizza or Kevin Mayhew, both believers, can hold a candle to Bartok or Brahms who were atheists.
But collectively speaking the flourishing of art then massively outstrips now- that is the point.
Dear Midlands Vicar, so are you saying that Mr Fry is right or are you just having a go at Fr Ed because he is a believing Catholic? Just interested. BTW it is just an opinion as to whether x is better than y
we cannot do that, namely oppose the intellectual, or artistic values of believers and non-believers to try to prove the possible validity/invalidity of faith; I could mention Newton or Pascal in response, Maxwell, Copernicus, Galileo and many others
Don’t think anyone now can discuss the problem of evil without invoking the science and specifically evolution. Not enough Christian theologians do this. One who does is the great Keith Ward – Anglican, as it happens.
Yes, John, as always, I agree; and please also see Gillian Straine, Introducing Science and Religion. Dr Straine is both a theologian and a physicist, educated at Imperial College London and Oxford.
On the other hand, Fr Ed’s post was polite and, as such, a model of how theological debate should be conducted, so thank you, Fr Ed.
Thank you Father for a well structured response to Mr. Fry who clearly has serious issues as revealed in his memoirs. There is much anger and resentment within him, which was demonstrated in the video.
I cannot understand how such an intellectual such as he, can rail against God when he does not believe there is a God
Your gentle and detailed response contrasts with his vitriol.
He needs our prayers.
What gives you the right to take any moral high ground? Stephen Fry is a wonderful kind caring passionate human. He just doesn’t happen to believe in any gods. Simple. One can have hope and faith without believing in any god nonsense.
Stephen Fry did not rail against a god he didnt believe in but one that was presented to him by Gay Byrne in the sense that ‘if’ god really did exist what would he say to him. It was a hypothetical question.
I believe Twitter is limited to 140 characters.
Yes but you can link on it to the blog
Stephen Fry is a practising homosexual. That he should hate the Church should come as no surprise, really.
I would have thought at his age, he’d be quite good at it now.
Terry
I am disappointed in your response.
Father Ed gave a very well reasoned, detailed, easily understood and gentle reply to the self -proclaimed atheist Mr Fry.
The video and Mr Fry’s recent memoirs demonstrate that he is a bit muddled in his thinking. Fr Paul Hamilton’s post “Mr.Fry comes across as a reasonable agnostic in the face of Bear’s gracious and real faith” also suggest that. Is he agnostic or atheist?
Paul O’Neill’s comment is no better than yours. Most comments are charitable and above all Christian.
As I have said in this thread already prayers are certainly needed for Mr Fry but also for you and Paul O’Neill.
Condemn the sin and forgive the sinner.
How is my comment uncharitable and un-Christian? I am stating a FACT. Did I say I hated him? Did I say he should be burnt at the stake? Where did I say anything uncharitable or un-Christian?
Stephen Fry hates the Catholic church. FACT. Get over it. And while you’re there, why don’t you get off your high horse. Regarding uncharitable or un-Christian behaviour, there is nothing worse than un-Christian arrogance.
And I still have no idea who Paul O’Neill is. The comment in response to mine was made by Phil.
I thought that Michelangio was also a practising homosexual?
Screaming.
That remark, Terry, does you no credit at all. It is merely a piece of gratuitous abuse and contrasts sharply (and very unedifyingly) with the reasoned and intelligent stance adopted by Fr. Ed.
Three things have crossed my mind, while reading Fr. Ed’s letter and the comments.
1. Whether or not we regard something as art or as junk is a matter of personal taste.
2. Atheism is a statement that the person does not believe. It is therefore, the opposite of the coin of the believer’s position. In other words it is also a matter of faith.
3. If there be no God then there is no morality and no such thing as rights. There is only a matter of personal taste. Therefore, one could not say to another person ‘what you do is wrong’ one can only say ‘I don’t like what you do’. Think of the consequences of that.
Absolute nonsense to suggest that you need gods have morals. We instinctively know what is right or wrong without having to read it in any outdated book purporting to be the word of a god. Don’t kid me you didn’t know it wad wrong to kill someone before you read it in your holy book. Society has codified right and wrong into laws and custom. And will continue to do so despite the nonsense spouted by religious extremists.
Clearly you cannot read Steve. Because the response to Mr. Fry clearly states that virtues are not reserved for faith alone.
I recently read that the search for good is the search for God. Whether we say we believe in God or profess non-belief is besides the point.
Right and Wrong are moral absolutes. They cannot derive from human cultural relativisms. There are enough examples around us to show what happens when that insight is lost or ignored. The English language unfortunately clouds the meanings in its ambiguities.
Nicely put Fr! Clearly there is much unfinished business in Mr.Fry’s heart and I agree with the other contributed who pointed out he needs our prayers.
Did anyone else see the survival show he was in with Bear Grills? They take a moment to discuss their contrasting world views and Mr.Fry comes across as a reasonable agnostic in the face of Bear’s gracious and real faith. Very admirable in my view.
Yes Fr. And did anybody see the 2013 debate with Stephen Fry “Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good?” To label it hate speech would be a gross understatement.
All good points aside from Terry’s astonishing remark, which was the most un Christian sweeping judgement I’ve read in quite a while. I’m a practicing homosexual too, Terry (well practice makes perfect they say). And a practicing Catholic with faults. I love God and God loves me, despite my sins. He loves you too, despite the fact you sin in a different way from me. So roll that in your Daily Mail and stick it..wherever you want. And great article Fr. Ed.
I didn’t know that you had such a “close” relationship to Michelangelo, Middy?!
I sometimes think that Stephen Fry is the least of our problems. At least in good conscience he expresses a view about God. And the challenge about evil is a tough one for any believer to deal with.
The bigger problem for me are those who simply don’t care and who think there are better things in life to worry about than religion. I find that very scary.
I went on retreat at Mount St Bernard Abbey about 10 years ago, and I always remember what one of the monks said: “Atheists – especially the thoughtful, sincere atheists – aren’t the problem. Apathists are the problem.”
If this person truly proposes the question of what meaning does life have without god, then I for one can’t take their argument seriously. Why does the meaning of life have to be absolute? I’m sure anyone can find meaning and purpose in their life without having to think of what end result they achieve from their actions. This argument has failed to give a satisfying reason to the purpose of god’s evil. I for one won’t be held accountable for a fallen angel that isn’t of my race, or the temptation of one person as a result of that angel wanting to overthrow a being he detested from thirst of power.
S. Fry is quite right. THanks for responding to his comments in a thoughtful, open manner. Can I offer a response to your various defences for suffering:
1. “to experience the love of God, seen in the theophany granted Job, is to satisfy all doubt and fear.” I cant for the life of me see why this is an explanation – Job surreders all doubt about the injustice of a cruel World because of the seemingly hypocritical love God has for him. “My boyfriend loves me – ok he slaps me around and makes me sleep with men for money which he takes, but he loves me and takes care of me” SAme.
2.”Ultimately some Christians have concluded this world is broken and reflects our fallen nature. Others imagine natural evil highlights to us a need for something more than this world- a fallen world creating a hunger for heaven. ” Tautology. If we are fallen then isnt it time we were saved? “Broken? what is that? Did God break it or stand by while it broke? This goes nowhere.
3. “admitted he asks the same question and has no easy answer beyond noting that the God of Christianity is one who himself suffered unfairly and tries to turn our suffering into victory through the cross of Christ and the message of Easter.” I thought Pope Benedict was a great Pope, (though not as great as Pope Francis who is brilliant and a man i can look up to). If you suffer greatly from having lung cancer do you secretly hope your children will get it so it can be turned “into victory?” No, I didnt think so. You do your best to make sure it doesnt happen to them.
4. “In part it is because simply removing God from the equation does nothing whatsoever to eradicate the problem of suffering in this world. What we cut off when we dismiss God is not the problem of evil so much as our means of salvation from it. And this is a point writ large in history.” Please think about this statement.Unspeakable evil exists if God exists or doesnt exist, but at least with God in the picture there is the hope of salvation? The question is why does God allow suffering in the World. Youve stated in this premise that he does allow suffering then dangles salvation. This does not answer the question it only reinforces the capricious God argument.
5. Both the French and Russian Revolutions, for example, encouraged violent rejection of Christ in the firm belief this would usher in a new Age of Enlightened Reason. It did not. It ushered in a reign of brutal terror, a destructive vortex of madness and death. In Nazi Germany, it was believed the substitution of Christianity with neo-paganism would give rise to a master race. It did not. It led to the unspeakable horrors of Auschwitz. And in Communist Russia, once Christianity was eradicated, along came the gulag and more indescribable human suffering.
You’re blaming the rejection of God as the singular reason for these terrible periods in history? REjection of God was one of many things that were thrown aside in these times – it was the combined effect of this abandonment of decency, rationality and clarity (and God) that caused this.
The evil inflicted on the Jews by the Nazis was an evil idelogogy that existed before Hitler tried (and failed, check your history) to succesfully redefine christianity.
6. “For if we remove our Judeo-Christian values and beliefs from modern society, the values that inspired the creation of the West, then what do you propose we put in their place? ”
I find we agree on something!Christianity ans Islam and all the other religions (including the ones that are older than Christianity) provide a moral fabric and strentgh in times of peril – religion’s greatest gift to humanity – hope. But its an empty hope. Its a hope that flys in the face of common sense. What do we put in its place? I dont know. Not cynical cads like me and SF, but a belief system that requires taking direct responsibility for our actions. Religious people look to God to save them instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting on with saving people. Perhaps if every holy man did this we’d have an army to pass this messgage along – just
dont hold up a cross to those you try to help, hold up a mirror. A double sided one.
As for the rest of your statement christianity also gave us The Crusades, Systematic organised Peadophilia, “witch” burning, persecution of Aethiests, Jews, Muslims and various masacres in His name.
A parting thought – I know this wont make you think again, though i believe in every Christian there is a rationist trying to get out. Think about this instead:
It’s funny how Christians rip into people who dont agree with them. Bit like the Romans did I seem to remember… Ever crossed your mind that the Second Coming might not look like you think it will?
Jed, I read your points with interest. However when you state:
“christianity also gave us ……., Systematic organised Peadophilia” I strongly disagree. Your suggestion is tantamount to saying that Christianity promoted or encouraged that vile practice. Catholicism certainly did not do enough to challenge it, but then neither did dangerously ambiguous remarks like this from Peter Tatchell: “The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13.”
Denis, fair point, Christianity’s teachings certainly do not promote peadoph. but sadly this conversation is about why God allows suffering… The practice of Christianity has provided an opportunity for it to thrive without proper oversight, in turn due to complacancy and hubris amongst the clergy. Unforgivable oversight in a hospital or business? Yes. In an organisation where the boss is God himself…?! Again i say to you, where was your God when his representatives inflicted misery on the weak and unprotected?
I dont know if Tachell is just running his mouth off or if that is standard practice in the gay community – i suspect not, but i dont know enough about it. The few gay people ive got to know have told me they didnt act on their gay impulses until their mid to late teens and they mostly are nothing like Tatchell who I’m pretty sure didnt get democratically voted in as the Gay Representative of Everybody.
I recently posted a response to this argument where I critiqued the ideas being put forward in this piece. Now it seems it has mysteriously been deleted. You can’t argue something and expect the point to finish where you have left it. Life doesn’t work like that, or is your word suddenly more righteous than mine? I shall copy and paste my original comment below. If you don’t agree with what I’m saying, tell me. I would truly like to hear a constructive argument to the points I raised.
” If this person truly proposes the question of what meaning does life have without god, then I for one can’t take their argument seriously. Why does the meaning of life have to be absolute? I’m sure anyone can find meaning and purpose in their life without having to think of what end result they achieve from their actions. This argument has failed to give a satisfying reason to the purpose of god’s evil. I for one won’t be held accountable for a fallen angel that isn’t of my race, or the temptation of one person as a result of that angel wanting to overthrow a being he detested from thirst of power. ”
Also, while I’m here, I would like to point out this particular gem you’ve written: “In Nazi Germany, it was believed the substitution of Christianity with neo-paganism would give rise to a master race. It did not. It led to the unspeakable horrors of Auschwitz.”
How have you come to this conclusion? I am rather speechless by this and so would love to know.
I apologise for the deleting comment, I see now it is awaiting moderation. Forgive the rudeness, I was just shocked it appeared and then had vanished. I therefore naturally assumed it was deleted. You can ignore the second post on that account.
]amie
Stephen Fry’s protestations are really all about Our Lord’s condemnation of homosexuality. He reminds me of a spoilt kid that can’t get his own way.
I can relate to the metaphor offered by Fr Robert Barron on the question of evil. When we have our nose too close to the canvas of an impressionist’s artwork we cannot understand the brushstrokes, the colours and forms, including the dark colours, until we stand back, at some distance, to see it in its entirety. We have our noses too close to see God’s artwork.
Another way of approaching the problem of evil follows from Romans 8:18: ‘I consider that sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us.’ Many mothers understand this: after a torrid delivery they are handed their precious newborn baby! The joy outweighs the pain to the point that mothers are willing to go through it all again to have another child.
Also, imagine if a toddler’s only hope of a lifelong cure was to undergo a painful and invasive operation? The short term suffering of that young child would be outweighed by the life-giving cure. Toddlers do not have the means to understand this and parents may seem capricious from their standpoint. We are the toddlers!
Perhaps this is what BXVI was humbly trying to say. It’s beyond our capacity to fully understand it in this life.
I have to trust God, my Dad.
I like your analogy about impressionists work. As a teenager i scrutinised Monet when i saw the series paintings,assembled in London, stood back and got all his works full in the face at once – had tears in my eyes from the sheer overwhelming beauty of it.
Your argument though falls into the God is greater than I so naturally i cannot understand why He lets terrible things happen. Passive Fatalism. Your examples both used terrible things that had good outcomes – analogous to misery on earth and paradise later? But why would a loving God do such a horrible thing? To brutalise us with no reason given in this life? Instinctively you must know and feel from your own life experiences that this never produces anything other than more hatred, anger and perpetuates and generates yet more brutality. I read about a woman who’s unborn baby was kicked to death inside her , she was then mutilated and murdered. You really dont have to look far to find examples like this. If, upon rational analysis you can see no reason why this was a good thing, then its probably because there were no redeeming features, not because you lack His vision. You dont have to be a Christian to practice Passive Fatalism either, I’m the same; I’m warm, safe, rich and it wasnt my daughter.
I can’t agree with the passive fatalism tag. When we can start to see what could possibly be ‘good’ about Good Friday then we begin to understand the Cross and its role in our own lives. Jesus did say follow me. We don’t just watch Jesus carry his – we also pick up our crosses. Following along the master artist analogy, perhaps God allows us to participate in his glory by putting some of the darker brush-strokes onto the canvas. Other times we might be adding the brighter colours. God is a humble and generous artist who wants us to share in the creation of the masterpiece. Perhaps we will not understand the type or size of our crosses in this life (the darker / brighter colours on the artwork) but we have to trust that the inestimable redemptive work that they entail give it a final beauty (the work resolves into a masterpiece). It’s active faith not passive fatalism. We trust the master painter and we actively choose whether or not to hold the paintbrush. We ask for the grace to be able to carry our crosses. And God’s grace is enough as St Paul tells us. How else did the Ugandan martyrs go joyously singing hymns of praise to God to their horrible deaths?
I think we live in two different worlds Marie. Yours is nice.
Good luck to you all
Jed.
Dear Father Ed,
I love the observation ‘What we cut off when we dismiss God is not the problem of evil so much as our means of salvation from it.’ The point that Jesus suffered as we all must do is not really made.
I like your point about the church dismissing God at certain times in history and that dismissing God comes at a cost i.e. civilisation breaks down and murderous things happen.
I’ve recently come across a virtue and ‘Character Education’ programme for schools developed by Birmingham University Jubilee Centre. As you say, modern liberal secular values are borrowed from Christianity. What worries me though is that the programme teaches children about virtue through the use of stories about medieval knights where the knights are the heroes. Knights were trained killers and that period of Christianity where murder, rape and pillage were used to control reminds me of something happening now.
i agree this is a big problem for non believers such as I – if i got a religion free world what would hold it together? And i agree Bernie that a bunch of shoddy murderers crashing about on horses are almost as bad role models as professional footballers and other secular non-entities. However Christianity did not invent the morals now borrowed by the liberal secularists. Christianity, in my view, borrowed humanism from what came before – human beings – the Greeks for instance had plenty of bad points but they had a lot of good ones to. they achieved great civilisations without Christianity to guide them. My point is it’s inate.
Right I’ll stop darkening your door and leave you to discuss without my heretical murmurings. Nice to talk with you all.
Good argument father, and God bless.
Good response Fr Ed, reasoned and also a lifeline to Mr Fry’s soul should he wish to take it – doing your job as a priest.
Bravo,
Patrick.
[…] the clip from your interview that has made its rounds on social media and caused a stream of responses, some good, some not-so-good varying from bitterly angry to fiercely sympathetic. I have to say, I […]