|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why cancer?
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
This may have been covered on the Ship before, but my Google skills haven't [yet] located it.
Has anyone come across a persuasive, intelligent and usable theodicy of cancer? I take it that we've moved away from sinful sickness. Greater good soul-making justifications of natural evil (Hick, Swinburne) seem grossly pastorally insensitive. 'Free-will' indeterminacy in the physical world may be of service to us, perhaps? Genetic mutations are necessary for a world that makes sentient humans, and in a self-making universe some mutations will be bound to be carcinogenic?
Any thoughts? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
It really is just one subset of the whole theodicy question, isn't it?
The best answer to the theodicy question I have found is in Open Theism. And within that, the best answer to the subset of "natural evil" (i.e. suffering not caused by our own sin) would be Greg Boyd's God at War. The central thesis (hard to summarize an entire systematic theology) is that God created a perfect universe, and made it free (i.e. open to change thru free choice) so that sentient beings would be free to love. Those free-will sentient beings include heavenly beings as well as human beings. Heavenly beings are both angels (those that follow God) and demons (those who defy God).
OK, so 4 billion years ago (or whenever the current theory says) God created the universe and in the 2nd second of its creation (Big Bang or whatever) Satan corrupted that creation. One of those corruptions was cancer.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
Genetic mutations are necessary for a world that makes sentient humans, and in a self-making universe some mutations will be bound to be carcinogenic?
This makes the most sense to me . A la C. S Lewis, you can say most evil in the world is a corruption or malfunction of something good. As I understand how cancer happens-- which could be wrong-- cancer is a malfunction in normal cell growth, like an obscene parody of what is supposed to happen. Yes, the way life generates, mutation is part of the process-- some mutation aid survival, some compromise it.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I suspect the secular world is moving towards sin as a cause of cancer as one third of cancers are linked to poor diet and lack of exercise, and then there are the cancers which are linked to sun exposure, smoking, alcohol consumption and sexual activity.
- poor diet - bowel cancer; but many more
- sun exposure - skin and retinal cancers;
- smoking -lung, throat and bladder cancers;
- alcohol consumption - head & neck, oesophageal, breast, liver and colorectal cancers;
- lack of exercise - breast and colon cancers;
- obesity - postmenopausal breast cancer, colorectal cancer, uterine cancer, kidney cancer, pancreatic cancer, gallbladder cancer, thyroid cancer, and esophageal cancer. Other cancers that may be linked to obesity include prostate cancer, liver cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
- Sexual activity - cervical, prostrate, penile and throat cancers
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
This may have been covered on the Ship before, but my Google skills haven't [yet] located it.
Has anyone come across a persuasive, intelligent and usable theodicy of cancer? I take it that we've moved away from sinful sickness. Greater good soul-making justifications of natural evil (Hick, Swinburne) seem grossly pastorally insensitive. 'Free-will' indeterminacy in the physical world may be of service to us, perhaps? Genetic mutations are necessary for a world that makes sentient humans, and in a self-making universe some mutations will be bound to be carcinogenic?
Any thoughts?
Yes, I think that works quite well. It's quite like the 'Darwinian theodicy' as described by Conor Cunningham ('Darwin's Pious Idea'). It's also like the older idea of God that 'makes things which make themselves' (Kingsley), which you refer to.
I think the idea of intelligibility is present here also; the idea that the universe is consistent, or (relatively) rule-governed, and this involves disease, disasters, and so on. As Dylan Thomas said, 'the force that through the green fuse drives the flower, drives my green age, that blasts the roots of trees, is my destroyer'.
I suppose the downside for some Christians that it might seem to approach deism.
Incidentally, this is all rather like the ancient idea of secondary causes, discussed at length in medieval philosophy, e.g. Albert the Great, which is rather like Kingsley's idea.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I suspect the secular world is moving towards sin as a cause of cancer as one third of cancers are linked to poor diet and lack of exercise, and then there are the cancers which are linked to sun exposure, smoking, alcohol consumption and sexual activity.
- poor diet - bowel cancer; but many more
- sun exposure - skin and retinal cancers;
- smoking -lung, throat and bladder cancers;
- alcohol consumption - head & neck, oesophageal, breast, liver and colorectal cancers;
- lack of exercise - breast and colon cancers;
- obesity - postmenopausal breast cancer, colorectal cancer, uterine cancer, kidney cancer, pancreatic cancer, gallbladder cancer, thyroid cancer, and esophageal cancer. Other cancers that may be linked to obesity include prostate cancer, liver cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
- Sexual activity - cervical, prostrate, penile and throat cancers
I hope you're wrong in your assessment that society is moving towards such a pov. The things you mention may be
risk factors for the cancers you note, but they are not causes. All sorts of non-smoking, healthy eating, physically active and yes, even celibate people get cancer. To suggest it is the result of sin is both scientifically and theologically inaccurate.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
At one time we died of all sorts of other nasty illnesses which no longer exist or can no longer kill us. I guess we all have to succumb to something eventually. I have battled and won for the present the nasty illness called cancer, but I've reached a stage where I just say "well shit happens" and then just get on with my life. That's all any of us can do. Certainly some poor lifestyle choices are causative, but not always. God is not to blame, nor is anything gained by blaming anybody.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
In answer to cliffdweller: I have just put together a teaching unit for 14-16 year olds on Healthy Lifestyles following a UK curriculum. A large section asked how lifestyle choices could cause heart disease or cancer, in this unit specifically lack of exercise, unhealthy diet or sun exposure. The smoking and drinking come in the Drugs Education unit and the sexual health comes in the Sex and Relationships unit. One I missed off that list is the link between poor sleeping patterns and some cancer risks. I found those links on public information health boards, both American and British.
According to Cancer Research in the UK, smoking causes about 25% of all cancers and 80% of lung cancers, drinking alcohol causes 4% of all cancers, 1 in 20, 5% of cancers may be linked to eating a diet low in fruit and vegetables and 1 in 20, 5% of bowel cancers are linked to eating red and processed meat.
The other health risk that is getting a lot of exposure in the UK is type 2 diabetes and the links to obesity and lack of exercise. There is currently a public health campaign to get people standing more to increase their exercise levels as the recommended levels are beyond most people as are the recommended levels of fruit and veg in the diet.
In the public health messages here there is beginning to be a puritanical undertone that people are causing their own health problems by their unhealthy lifestyle choices and questions about withholding treatment from people who are culpable are being asked.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
Interestingly, a 1997 US study by Moschella et al bears out bib's experience. quote:
Religious cancer patients intensify their religious belief and practice in response to their illness. Despite the elusiveness of an explanation for their suffering in religious terms, patients remain confident in their faith.
Which raises two points: Does Moschella's finding transpose across to a C21 UK context? Do grieving 'religious' spouses, family and friends experience a similar confidence?
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
cliffdweller, that ain't the best by a country mile. This IS the perfect creation. A Devil that powerful is absurd, especially when there is less evidence for him intervening than there is for God.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
In answer to cliffdweller: I have just put together a teaching unit for 14-16 year olds on Healthy Lifestyles following a UK curriculum. A large section asked how lifestyle choices could cause heart disease or cancer, in this unit specifically lack of exercise, unhealthy diet or sun exposure. The smoking and drinking come in the Drugs Education unit and the sexual health comes in the Sex and Relationships unit. One I missed off that list is the link between poor sleeping patterns and some cancer risks. I found those links on public information health boards, both American and British.
According to Cancer Research in the UK, smoking causes about 25% of all cancers and 80% of lung cancers, drinking alcohol causes 4% of all cancers, 1 in 20, 5% of cancers may be linked to eating a diet low in fruit and vegetables and 1 in 20, 5% of bowel cancers are linked to eating red and processed meat.
You are missing my point. I am certainly not disputing the (well-known) scientific findings you are citing here-- I'm disputing the way you are interpreting/ presenting them. As I said, things like lack of exercise and poor diet are risk factors for certain cancers, and therefore it is essential that we get that info. out (as in your teaching unit) and encourage people of all ages to adopt healthier habits.
But risk factor is not the same thing as cause. As your own stats indicate, those risk factors are not the whole story-- most people who get cancer do not show those risk factors, they did nothing wrong. Even among any one person who gets cancer, it's impossible to say to what degree those factors caused the cancer, and what is attributable simply to crappy luck. No doctor or scientist is able to say with assurance that if patient A had not engage in risky action B they would not have gotten cancer.
To twist the stats on risk factors to suggest that cancer is a result of sin or even just "foolish choices"is not a valid expression of the scientific data. And socially, politically, and theologically, it has horrific consequences, such as the one you noted:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
In the public health messages here there is beginning to be a puritanical undertone that people are causing their own health problems by their unhealthy lifestyle choices and questions about withholding treatment from people who are culpable are being asked.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
cliffdweller, that ain't the best by a country mile. This IS the perfect creation.
Really? This world that is filled with suffering and injustice, that's the best we've got? This world that is filled with children suffering tremendous pain thru cancer and other diseases that were not caused by them or even by others' sins, that's the best possible world? This world with natural disasters that cause great suffering, usually to the poorest people on the planet, that's good? The "cycle of life" whereby the strong prey on the weak, where the strongest species can survive only through killing-- that's the best possible world?
The open view takes seriously the NT teaching that one day there will be a "new heaven and new earth"-- with the implicit assumption that we need something new-- something different. It takes seriously the NT word that "all of creation groans", longing for that day when everything, including the natural world itself, will be set right.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
cliffdweller, that ain't the best by a country mile. This IS the perfect creation.
Really? This world that is filled with suffering and injustice, that's the best we've got? This world that is filled with children suffering tremendous pain thru cancer and other diseases that were not caused by them or even by others' sins, that's the best possible world? This world with natural disasters that cause great suffering, usually to the poorest people on the planet, that's good? The "cycle of life" whereby the strong prey on the weak, where the strongest species can survive only through killing-- that's the best possible world?
The open view takes seriously the NT teaching that one day there will be a "new heaven and new earth"-- with the implicit assumption that we need something new-- something different. It takes seriously the NT word that "all of creation groans", longing for that day when everything, including the natural world itself, will be set right.
Very eloquently put, and I suppose this is the basis for much religious and political yearning; I'm reminded of Marx's comment on religion, 'the heart of a heartless world'.
But I like Martin's comment, although possibly I am misunderstanding him. I think there is perfection here, and to be always thinking that things could be better seems to miss life now. Well, that's very human of course, the grass is always greener.
This reminds me of a famous Zen story about a woman who goes to the butcher's and asks for best steak, and he retorts, it's all the best. Now that I like a lot. This moment is the pearl of great price.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
cliffdweller, that ain't the best by a country mile. This IS the perfect creation.
Really? This world that is filled with suffering and injustice, that's the best we've got? This world that is filled with children suffering tremendous pain thru cancer and other diseases that were not caused by them or even by others' sins, that's the best possible world? This world with natural disasters that cause great suffering, usually to the poorest people on the planet, that's good? The "cycle of life" whereby the strong prey on the weak, where the strongest species can survive only through killing-- that's the best possible world?
The open view takes seriously the NT teaching that one day there will be a "new heaven and new earth"-- with the implicit assumption that we need something new-- something different. It takes seriously the NT word that "all of creation groans", longing for that day when everything, including the natural world itself, will be set right.
Very eloquently put, and I suppose this is the basis for much religious and political yearning; I'm reminded of Marx's comment on religion, 'the heart of a heartless world'.
But I like Martin's comment, although possibly I am misunderstanding him. I think there is perfection here, and to be always thinking that things could be better seems to miss life now. Well, that's very human of course, the grass is always greener.
This reminds me of a famous Zen story about a woman who goes to the butcher's and asks for best steak, and he retorts, it's all the best. Now that I like a lot. This moment is the pearl of great price.
Conversely, I think religion can be a way of turning a blind eye to suffering. What appeals to me about Christianity is that it takes (or should take imho) suffering seriously. There IS real suffering in this world. There IS injustice. A good deal of that suffering and injustice is our own damn fault-- the result of human sin. But a good deal of the suffering/ injustice is part of the way the universe works-- again, the very fact that nature itself is "red of tooth and claw"-- that it works only when the strong prey on the weak. I believe things are not as they should be. Which should inspire us to action, as well as to prayer. Maranatha.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
Has anyone come across a persuasive, intelligent and usable theodicy of cancer?
Nope.
At least, after nigh-on 20 years' working in healthcare, I've never come across one.
But I'd throw the question back at those who ask it: why cancer? Why concentrate on this class of diseases, and not ask for, say, a theodicy of kidney failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?
In the UK, there's no class of disease that comes anywhere close to cancer in terms of the quantity of money thrown at it, the research effort, and the "sharp-end" care in specialist hospitals and hospices. (On which point, we might ask why almost all hospice care in the UK is taken up by cancer patients.)
Why have we constructed a unique edifice of fear around cancer?
As I was saying to a friend recently, cancer would now almost be my preferred way to end my life, because I know I would have the best care that the NHS could afford. What I really dread is stroke, emphysema, Alzheimer's...
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I suspect the secular world is moving towards sin as a cause of cancer as one third of cancers are linked to poor diet and lack of exercise, and then there are the cancers which are linked to sun exposure, smoking, alcohol consumption and sexual activity.
So was there far less cancer pre sun bathing, smoking, alcohol and sedentary lifestyles?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Yes, because we died of cholera, typhoid, typhus, pneumonia, flu, accidents and the resultant septicaemia, tetanus, diptheria, polio and the rest before we had a chance to develop cancer.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Yes, because we died of cholera, typhoid, typhus, pneumonia, flu, accidents and the resultant septicaemia, tetanus, diptheria, polio and the rest before we had a chance to develop cancer.
Like someone else said - you could just as well ask 'why all of these diseases?' or 'why disease at all? - it's the same question imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But I'd throw the question back at those who ask it: why cancer? Why concentrate on this class of diseases, and not ask for, say, a theodicy of kidney failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?
Thinking loosely, and hazarding a guess...
I guess in some ways cancer is unusual in that:
Unlike heart failure it's harder to see as the body not doing something it's done fine for years. Which probably would make it seem in some way eventually 'inevitable', the question becomes 'why now?'.
Yet unlike virus's (and sharp objects) the problem is harder to see as coming from an external world. Otherwise the question becomes why does the virus (etc...) exist?
And either spin might just be different enough to allow more of a hope/suspicion/worry that there may be an answer.
[not sure how that would fit in with a pre-germ theory world]
[ 13. July 2014, 15:23: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You get me q. We don't take suffering seriously at all. We keep waiting and waiting for God to fix it with magic or after we're dead. Rather than actually doing anything.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Martin - Curiosity's list shows just how much has been done about once common causes of suffering and death.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's humanity. Not Christianity.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
The abbot of my Zen centre and a personal friend died recently of a rare form of lung Cancer that at the stage he was diagnosed had no treatment available. He was a vegetarian with no drinking problems. He practised Zen meditation daily and was the heart an Soul of a Buddhist community that will miss him.
He worked incredibly hard for his community and was
for me a great example of Humility and selfless work.
I find the idea that Cancer is related to "Sin" deeply offensive. And question any "faith" or "religion" that could make that claim seriously.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
Has anyone come across a persuasive, intelligent and usable theodicy of cancer?
Nope.
But I'd throw the question back at those who ask it: why cancer? Why concentrate on this class of diseases, and not ask for, say, a theodicy of kidney failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?
OK, my question might have been better phrased, but this is the pastoral question I'm being asked this week. Without going into the details, it's not a 'wearing out' form of cancer, nor a suspected behavioural cause, perhaps a familial tendency, out of the blue in tragic circumstances.
At least I'm reassured that you haven't come across anything.
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed...:
"Sexual activity - cervical, prostrate, penile and throat cancers"
Clearly someone has spent far too much time lying down on the job.
S-E
--------------------
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
David Hume
Posts: 817 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Yes, because we died of cholera, typhoid, typhus, pneumonia, flu, accidents and the resultant septicaemia, tetanus, diptheria, polio and the rest before we had a chance to develop cancer.
Yes. I was listening to a BBC report a month or so ago that was reporting on a 5-fold increase in type 2 diabetes in Africa. Having just returned from central Africa, I was pondering why that might be. Suddenly that very thing dawned on me-- type 2 diabetes is increasing in Africa because it is a progressive disease that can take decades to develop. Because of advances in health care, especially re malaria and AIDS, more Africans are living long enough to develop it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
Has anyone come across a persuasive, intelligent and usable theodicy of cancer?
Nope.
But I'd throw the question back at those who ask it: why cancer? Why concentrate on this class of diseases, and not ask for, say, a theodicy of kidney failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?
OK, my question might have been better phrased, but this is the pastoral question I'm being asked this week. Without going into the details, it's not a 'wearing out' form of cancer, nor a suspected behavioural cause, perhaps a familial tendency, out of the blue in tragic circumstances.
At least I'm reassured that you haven't come across anything.
Who is the "you" and why is that reassuring?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It would be interesting to see what the theodicy is about say Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy or Huntington's Disease is. Both genetic error diseases that have no cure and sentence the person to early death, the former by progressive deterioration and disability of muscles, the latter later in life with neurological, coordination and psychological. The person with these conditions simply has the wrong parents who genetically gave the wrong genes.
On the other side, it would be interesting to understand the theodicy of something like Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) which is dependent on mother abusing alcohol during pregnancy. She will not pay health wise, but the child will with anatomical abnormalities and behavioural problems; this is a group crowding Canadian jails.
In my simple-minded lay approach, I take the first as part of the hands-off approach post-creation initiaton evident in most of what we see in the world/universe, and the second as part of the free will equation where people can make choices and simply do. God being a spectator to both scenarios, available as a companion and comfort to the sufferer. Like Lamb Chopped suggests above, cry out to Jesus.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I hope you're wrong in your assessment that society is moving towards such a pov. The things you mention may be
risk factors for the cancers you note, but they are not causes. All sorts of non-smoking, healthy eating, physically active and yes, even celibate people get cancer. To suggest it is the result of sin is both scientifically and theologically inaccurate.
I don't think she's wrong in terms of how the lay person thinks. I know of someone who has had lung cancer, and has found it best to immediately clarify that he doesn't smoke as that second piece of information alters how people treat him. It's almost as if he had a separate, specific disease of "non-smoker's lung cancer".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It would be interesting to see what the theodicy is about say Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy or Huntington's Disease is. Both genetic error diseases that have no cure and sentence the person to early death, the former by progressive deterioration and disability of muscles, the latter later in life with neurological, coordination and psychological. The person with these conditions simply has the wrong parents who genetically gave the wrong genes.
On the other side, it would be interesting to understand the theodicy of something like Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) which is dependent on mother abusing alcohol during pregnancy. She will not pay health wise, but the child will with anatomical abnormalities and behavioural problems; this is a group crowding Canadian jails.
In my simple-minded lay approach, I take the first as part of the hands-off approach post-creation initiaton evident in most of what we see in the world/universe, and the second as part of the free will equation where people can make choices and simply do. God being a spectator to both scenarios, available as a companion and comfort to the sufferer. Like Lamb Chopped suggests above, cry out to Jesus.
This is getting pretty close to deism, isn't it? It strikes me that theodicies have gone this way, so as to move away from interventionist theodicies, as they seem to get in trouble. Well, it's non-intervention which is the trouble.
It's ironic (to me) that this is where those medieval philosophers were heading, when they posited secondary causes, the primary cause being God. But the idea of secondary causes sees the universe as an autonomous natural entity; which (allegedly) leads to the development of science. And science is looking for a cure for cancer. So it goes.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
[QUOTE]This is getting pretty close to deism, isn't it? It strikes me that theodicies have gone this way, so as to move away from interventionist theodicies, as they seem to get in trouble. Well, it's non-intervention which is the trouble.
And non-intervention is what we've got - so we have to find a way to explain it/live with it.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
[QUOTE]This is getting pretty close to deism, isn't it? It strikes me that theodicies have gone this way, so as to move away from interventionist theodicies, as they seem to get in trouble. Well, it's non-intervention which is the trouble.
And non-intervention is what we've got - so we have to find a way to explain it/live with it.
Yes, and there are many ways of explaining it. The one I find really interesting is the Jewish idea of tzimtzum, that God withdraws, so that creation can be. This can also be found in Christian thinking, e.g. Simone Weil.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I find the idea that Cancer is related to "Sin" deeply offensive. And question any "faith" or "religion" that could make that claim seriously.
You and me both. Some of my most difficult work involves people who, by the time I see them, have been guilt-tripped by family, friends, medical professionals, the whole healthcare system, and, not least, themselves. Am I to add to that burden?
Perhaps instead of asking for a theodicy of cancer we might start instead by looking at the social construction of cancers: how "cancer" comes to mean what it means to us. Oddly enough, there's not a great deal of primary literature on the subject, though there is an enormous amount of related literature on the social construction of illness in general.
You could start, for example, with Susan Sontag's Illness as Metaphor, in which she argues that the metaphorical language we use about illness disempowers the sick person by imposing well-defined "illness trajectories" (not sure if that's her term, but it's a commonly used one). In other words, as soon as a person becomes ill, they're expected to react, behave, and generally live in pretty well defined ways.
With cancer, the "illness trajectory" in our culture includes the expectation that the person will experience fear, should experience guilt (with the "lifestyle cancers"), and should also experience an anticipation of death from which they may possibly be rescued by the application of technology. The illness trajectory of cancer also tends to include features such as the "military metaphor" - Mr X is "fighting cancer"; Ms Y "lost her battle against cancer", and so on - which may turn out to be exhausting and debilitating instead of helpful and encouraging.
We really do need to start looking behind the curtain when it comes to our attiutudes towards cancer, and the language we use about it. Maybe then we might catch a glimpse of where God might be in the whole thing.
[Edited to correct misremembered book title]
[ 14. July 2014, 09:37: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Adeodatus
What an excellent post. I know a little bit about illness as a social construction, and also 'the career of mental patient', and so on, but looking at cancer in this way would be very profitable, I think. Asking for a theodicy of cancer presupposes a whole range of ideas about it, as you have indicated. I think one of them is that cancer is somehow obscene and anti-nature, not in nature, or unnatural, or something like that. It's a kind of deep mythology, and I suppose it also carries a kind of outrage with it. So naturally enough, religious people are going to ask, why does God allow nature to be deformed, which itself raises a number of (concealed) questions.
It reminds me a bit of tectonic plates, but that's another ball-game.
[ 14. July 2014, 12:18: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
[QUOTE]This is getting pretty close to deism, isn't it? It strikes me that theodicies have gone this way, so as to move away from interventionist theodicies, as they seem to get in trouble. Well, it's non-intervention which is the trouble.
And non-intervention is what we've got - so we have to find a way to explain it/live with it.
Two points, the first is that Boogie appears, unfortunately to sum it up correctly.
Second, naming it Deism seems an attempt to put the view in its place (this may not have been your deliberate intent, but is an effect of it). I see this commonly, where there is an appeal to the authority of the faith, the church or ancient acceptance of doctrine. Label it, and it can be placed outside of something that is suggested to be known as true, but not known as true when compared observations and lived experience of human beings.
I think we need to grow up as humans, expand our understandings beyond what was accepted 50, 150, 1500 years ago, and apply what we actually know, avoid wilful blindness and appeals to our emotions. Cancer and other diseases are terrible, there isn't a specific good nor evil to be found within the diseases themselves, but there is profound meaning to be found from a grown up theology that helps us muddle through the meanings of life and death when so confronted.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I suspect the secular world is moving towards sin as a cause of cancer as one third of cancers are linked to poor diet and lack of exercise, and then there are the cancers which are linked to sun exposure, smoking, alcohol consumption and sexual activity.
My misgiving about that is that a lot of the things on your list are (arguably) sinful only or mainly because they are health risks. I don’t think you’re really saying “sin causes cancer”, but rather “doing something that might cause cancer without good reason is a sin”. And that last one may be true, but doesn’t really advance the “Why cancer?” question.
What I mean is that smoking would be pretty unobjectionable if it were safe. It would be no more a moral question than any other leisure activity. It doesn’t make sense to ‘explain’ lung cancer as God’s punishment for smoking (not that I think you mean to do that), because there’s nothing about smoking that deserves condemnation except that it destroys lives through such things as lung cancer. Knowing the causes helps us to avoid the risks, and as a result someone who knows the causes of lung cancer may sin by wrongfully exposing themselves or others to a known risk, but the existence of the risk itself remains a problem, and isn’t really explained by the fact that we can make poor decisions about it.
There are a few items in your list that are possibly sinful independent of their health consequences: conservative Christian ethics would hold fornication sinful even in a world with perfect contraception and disease prevention, for example. But that appears to be an incidental consequence, not really indicative of how the world works generally. If gossiping were a recognised cause of throat cancer, thieves suffered disproportionately from arthritis, envious people were more likely to develop visual handicaps, and so on, then we might infer a link in principle between ill health and sin. As it is, I don’t think we can say more than that some things and inherently sinful and also harmful to health, and some things are sinful because they are harmful to health, but that is not a general answer to the problem of cancer.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Adeodatus
Thinking a bit more about the 'meanings of cancer', I think it is often seen as meaningless, and therefore obscene. Well, a lot of suffering can be seen as meaningless, no doubt, but cancer seems to rank highly.
So I suppose 'theodicy' is partly the quest for meaning.
I suppose it's quite sensible to say 'I don't know'. I got used to doing this, working as a therapist, (although not particularly about cancer), and at first had to work through some guilt, as if I should know. However, of course, therapists have all kinds of bloody clever replies, such as 'do you think that I should know?', that perhaps are not available to a clergyman.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
That cancer has no meaning in terms of how it is acquired or caused - that it just happens - does not mean that meaning cannot be derived from it.
I met a very nice man after he rear ended my car about 25 years ago. He and his family became our friends after that (we recognized each other elsewhere and got to talking). I don't think God or anyone else caused the accident, but apparently we made some good come of it.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
That cancer has no meaning in terms of how it is acquired or caused - that it just happens - does not mean that meaning cannot be derived from it.
I met a very nice man after he rear ended my car about 25 years ago. He and his family became our friends after that (we recognized each other elsewhere and got to talking). I don't think God or anyone else caused the accident, but apparently we made some good come of it.
I think this is a much more viable interpretation of Rom. 8:28 ("God working in and thru all things", rather than "God caused all things"). And much healthier. When we are stuck in a paradigm where God has to cause or passively "allow" suffering, we end up in a form of denial and cognitive dissonance that IMHO is just not healthy psychologically or spiritually. But when your paradigm allows for what appears to be obvious-- that there are things that happen that can in no way be perceived of as "good"-- but that God is present & active even in those things/ places-- there is hope.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
That cancer has no meaning in terms of how it is acquired or caused - that it just happens - does not mean that meaning cannot be derived from it.
I met a very nice man after he rear ended my car about 25 years ago. He and his family became our friends after that (we recognized each other elsewhere and got to talking). I don't think God or anyone else caused the accident, but apparently we made some good come of it.
I agree with that. One of my memories of my dad dying of cancer, is him lying in bed, listening to classical music, and conducting it with his hands, and saying, 'I'm blissful'. I suppose that was the morphine, but it was also his life, coming to an end, but also beginning again at every moment. He was an atheist, but he died as he lived, a good and faithful servant.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
The best answer for theodicy I ever came across was that theodicy is the devil's business, because only the devil can justify evil. The trouble with theodicy is that it tends to try to find that mysterious something in service of which evil is justified. How about we just call evil evil? Cancer is evil. Christ came to triumph over it, but it's not clear exactly how. God works to bring good out of every situation, including evil, but that doesn't take away the fact that evil is evil, and there is no justification for it. Our faith is that Good wins in the end, but we have no idea how that happens or what it really looks like.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Eliab - I wasn't actually saying that sin caused cancer but that a lot of secular responses to cancer, including those of the Cancer Research Council which I quoted, are implicitly blaming cancer sufferers for their disease. There seems to be an underlying message that cancers are avoidable if people follow health advice, don't smoke, don't drink, eat 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day, cut down on processed and red meat and stay out of the sun.
Adeodatus and orfeo also reflecting that point in their posts. That there is an undercurrent, for example, that people with lung cancer had obviously smoked and brought it upon themselves - hence the guilt.
My point wasn't that sin causes cancer as in a Christian sense of punishment for evil doing, but that there is a perception that cancer is a punishment for not treating our bodies as temples.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
Has anyone come across a persuasive, intelligent and usable theodicy of cancer?
Nope.
But I'd throw the question back at those who ask it: why cancer? Why concentrate on this class of diseases, and not ask for, say, a theodicy of kidney failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?
OK, my question might have been better phrased, but this is the pastoral question I'm being asked this week. Without going into the details, it's not a 'wearing out' form of cancer, nor a suspected behavioural cause, perhaps a familial tendency, out of the blue in tragic circumstances.
At least I'm reassured that you haven't come across anything.
Who is the "you" and why is that reassuring?
In this context, "you" signified Adeodatus and I am reassured because he is someone whose experience I value. He's been being-there daily for years, whereas the rest of us often only face up to such questions when we are forced to.
Thank you to Shipmates - as always - for opening up an OP in interesting and illuminating ways. I phrased the OP as I did because that was the essence of the presenting question from a devastated recently-married spouse. But of course, the issue goes much wider than one particular illness.
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There's certainly a lot of guilt associated with sickness, as if it's your fault. You find this also in some New Age fads, which tell you that if you eat 37 oranges a day, you will feel better, and if you don't, it's because you ate 36. Well, I exaggerate.
I think though that the guilt bestows meaning - it makes it comprehensible. This has happened because I did something wrong - and people dread that it's meaningless.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The guilt also validates a semi-unconscious assumption that most of us really, really don't want to do without--the assumption that we are in control of what happens to us. For most people, given the choice, they'd rather feel in-charge and guilty than out-of-control and innocent of any wrongdoing.
It reminds me of those baby carseats that have a little steering wheel attached so the baby can believe it is driving the car. Or the people (like me ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ) who slam on the brakes with their feet, even when sitting on the passenger side.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I suspect the secular world is moving towards sin as a cause of cancer as one third of cancers are linked to poor diet and lack of exercise, and then there are the cancers which are linked to sun exposure, smoking, alcohol consumption and sexual activity.
- poor diet - bowel cancer; but many more
- sun exposure - skin and retinal cancers;
- smoking -lung, throat and bladder cancers;
- alcohol consumption - head & neck, oesophageal, breast, liver and colorectal cancers;
- lack of exercise - breast and colon cancers;
- obesity - postmenopausal breast cancer, colorectal cancer, uterine cancer, kidney cancer, pancreatic cancer, gallbladder cancer, thyroid cancer, and esophageal cancer. Other cancers that may be linked to obesity include prostate cancer, liver cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
- Sexual activity - cervical, prostrate, penile and throat cancers
I hope you're wrong in your assessment that society is moving towards such a pov. The things you mention may be
risk factors for the cancers you note, but they are not causes. All sorts of non-smoking, healthy eating, physically active and yes, even celibate people get cancer. To suggest it is the result of sin is both scientifically and theologically inaccurate.
I hope that the secular view of disease is caused by sin is wrong but I fear it is not. There is a massive industry around promoting healthy living, which at face value looks fine but the messages they peddle lead most, including, sadly, healthcare workers to make the shortcut that if,eg. obesity increases your risk of disease, then you get disease because of obesity. It is at once comforting for the smug well and stigmatising and incredibly non-compassionate for those who have a disease, whether its manifestation was related to obesity/smoking/laziness/poor lifestyle or not.
I don't believe we will ever know why a good, all powerful God allows a world in which there is so much suffering and particularly why the evil prosper and the good suffer so often
[ 15. July 2014, 00:20: Message edited by: Evangeline ]
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There's certainly a lot of guilt associated with sickness, as if it's your fault.
<snip>
I think though that the guilt bestows meaning - it makes it comprehensible. This has happened because I did something wrong - and people dread that it's meaningless.
I think some people try to make the sick feel guilty because they (the well ones) don't know what else to say.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But I'd throw the question back at those who ask it: why cancer? Why concentrate on this class of diseases, and not ask for, say, a theodicy of kidney failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?
In the UK, there's no class of disease that comes anywhere close to cancer in terms of the quantity of money thrown at it, the research effort, and the "sharp-end" care in specialist hospitals and hospices. (On which point, we might ask why almost all hospice care in the UK is taken up by cancer patients.)
Why have we constructed a unique edifice of fear around cancer?
As I was saying to a friend recently, cancer would now almost be my preferred way to end my life, because I know I would have the best care that the NHS could afford. What I really dread is stroke, emphysema, Alzheimer's...
Thank you. That's my "Why cancer?"
Why does my church have a special cancer pledge drive every single year and never a thought for any other disease? Why does America go through an entire month of "breast cancer awareness," every year? When was the last time anyone collected a penny for schizophrenia research, a disease that strikes young people, traps them in a nightmare for the next fifty years, and costs the government a fortune in social security?
I'm at a high risk for cancer myself but I don't fear it the way I would a diagnosis of emphysema or a half dozen other diseases that effect breathing.
Along with the inequitable amount of concern and money thrown at cancer goes the belief that people who get it, deserve it, because they didn't practice the ever changing rules of a "healthy lifestyle."
I hate the way we teach this attitude to children. Tell them smoking is linked to most lung cancer. Fine. Then leave it there.
Telling them that their obesity will cause them to get cancer is just one more way to make fat kids hate themselves. There is no cure for obesity. Until doctors come up with a diet or exercise plan or pill that doesn't carry a 98% failure rate, they ought to just shut up about it.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
