Thread: Why cancer? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027450

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.


 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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? [Confused]

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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.


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.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.


 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
cliffdweller, I don't disagree. I was reflecting something I'd picked up from researching healthy lifestyles recently. Those figures were giving percentages caused by whatever.

To quote a couple of the links:
quote:
Smoking causes over 8 out of 10 cases (80%) of lung cancer in the UK.
quote:
Every year, alcohol causes 4% of cancers in the UK, around 12,500 cases.
I was surprised that it so explicitly said that cancers were caused by alcohol and smoking in those links.

[ 13. July 2014, 14:20: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Martin - Curiosity's list shows just how much has been done about once common causes of suffering and death.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
That's humanity. Not Christianity.
 
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Only "shit happens." And then crying out to Jesus Christ.
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
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
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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".
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
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] ) who slam on the brakes with their feet, even when sitting on the passenger side.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
We have earthquakes because a geologically living world has plate tectonics. These same forces introduced C02 into the atmosphere which early plants used to create an oxygen atmosphere we can breathe.
We have hurricanes because energy imbalances lead to a transfer mechanism (hurricanes are VERY good at moving heat from the tropics to the temperate zones).
Gamma bursters that could sterilize life on earth because that's where heavier elements like metals come from.

Plenty of examples if you want to try and explain natural disasters in theological context without resorting to a fallen creation.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
We have earthquakes because a geologically living world has plate tectonics. These same forces introduced C02 into the atmosphere which early plants used to create an oxygen atmosphere we can breathe.
We have hurricanes because energy imbalances lead to a transfer mechanism (hurricanes are VERY good at moving heat from the tropics to the temperate zones).
Gamma bursters that could sterilize life on earth because that's where heavier elements like metals come from.

Plenty of examples if you want to try and explain natural disasters in theological context without resorting to a fallen creation.

That's just the flip side of Boyd's thesis. The "brokenness" of the world is "natural"-- that's a given. The question is, why? If we believe in a good God, we have to account for the reality that the what is "natural" causes a great deal of both human and animal suffering and entails a high degree of injustice (the strong survive only by preying on the weak, evolution works by weeding out the weak, etc.) One way to do that is to frame all that natural evil as the "fallenness" or corruption of creation, and to imagine a world that operated differently.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
You can apply the same argument (as with plate tectonics) to pain and death - that they are beneficial. Pain is clearly of benefit to animals, as a warning system; death is beneficial to the ecosystem by removing stuff.

I suppose then you might argue, but there is too much pain, and then you are back with the autonomy of the natural world, which 'makes itself'. Or you are back with non-intervention, which is the same thing.

So there seems to be the idea lurking, that God should intervene but doesn't (to stop the pain). I don't know the solution to that, I suppose one solution is just to accept it all.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can apply the same argument (as with plate tectonics) to pain and death - that they are beneficial. Pain is clearly of benefit to animals, as a warning system; death is beneficial to the ecosystem by removing stuff.

I suppose then you might argue, but there is too much pain, and then you are back with the autonomy of the natural world, which 'makes itself'. Or you are back with non-intervention, which is the same thing.

So there seems to be the idea lurking, that God should intervene but doesn't (to stop the pain). I don't know the solution to that, I suppose one solution is just to accept it all.

Yes. The alternative is to accept, as per Boyd, that the world as it naturally now exists is not the world as God intended it to be-- taking seriously the biblical texts about the "groaning" of creation for the coming restoration/ recreation of both heaven & earth.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can apply the same argument (as with plate tectonics) to pain and death - that they are beneficial. Pain is clearly of benefit to animals, as a warning system; death is beneficial to the ecosystem by removing stuff.

I suppose then you might argue, but there is too much pain, and then you are back with the autonomy of the natural world, which 'makes itself'. Or you are back with non-intervention, which is the same thing.

So there seems to be the idea lurking, that God should intervene but doesn't (to stop the pain). I don't know the solution to that, I suppose one solution is just to accept it all.

Yes. The alternative is to accept, as per Boyd, that the world as it naturally now exists is not the world as God intended it to be-- taking seriously the biblical texts about the "groaning" of creation for the coming restoration/ recreation of both heaven & earth.
But plate tectonics and therefore earthquakes, disease and suffering all predate humans. If the universe isn't as God intented, then it seems to me that, contra a traditional reading of Genesis 1-3, it weren't us what done it, yeronner.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can apply the same argument (as with plate tectonics) to pain and death - that they are beneficial. Pain is clearly of benefit to animals, as a warning system; death is beneficial to the ecosystem by removing stuff.

I suppose then you might argue, but there is too much pain, and then you are back with the autonomy of the natural world, which 'makes itself'. Or you are back with non-intervention, which is the same thing.

So there seems to be the idea lurking, that God should intervene but doesn't (to stop the pain). I don't know the solution to that, I suppose one solution is just to accept it all.

Yes. The alternative is to accept, as per Boyd, that the world as it naturally now exists is not the world as God intended it to be-- taking seriously the biblical texts about the "groaning" of creation for the coming restoration/ recreation of both heaven & earth.
But plate tectonics and therefore earthquakes, disease and suffering all predate humans. If the universe isn't as God intented, then it seems to me that, contra a traditional reading of Genesis 1-3, it weren't us what done it, yeronner.
Yes. If you're following my summary of Boyd's argument, you'd see it certainly is not a "traditional" (by which I assume you mean literal) reading of Gen. 1-3. And since what I'm talking about is natural evil, it is, by definition, that evil which cannot be placed at humanity's door. The evil we're talking about here began some 4 billion (or more) years ago.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The evolution of pain is itself interesting, since presumably it has to be fairly intense, and also sudden, otherwise it would not work as a warning, in the face of danger or injury. It's just that we sometimes get an overload, when we have got the message, but it still keeps sending it.

I think Dawkins has an interesting discussion of it somewhere; I will have a look. There is also the question as to which animals don't have pain, or have a reduced version, e.g. insects, fish, and so on. I think Descartes argues that animals don't suffer pain, now discredited.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I tracked this down last evening -

The Rhetoric of Cancer

(It's BBC World Service - I hope it's widely available. If not, I suppose it may be available from some other source.)

I think it's a superb exploration of one person's search for a language that would express his experience of cancer. It's interesting that the only person in the interviews who really pushed the military metaphor was the charity fundraiser. Everyone else was very willing to explore other languages, and, I think, to stay with Graystone's agenda rather than pushing their own. Beautiful.

And I won't spoil the ending (yet), but there was a phrase in the final interview that knocked me for six.
 
Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :
 
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.

Yes, this. It's getting more and more evident as the country continues to veer dangerously rightward.

Cancer is particularly susceptible to it because, of all illnesses, it's the one that people seem most prone to narrativising: people who have cancer aren't patients with illnesses, they're WARRIORS who are BRAVELY FIGHTING in their BATTLE WITH CANCER. Through it all they must remain positive and upbeat and determined and strong, and at the end they must go peacefully and calmly having reconciled themselves to their end and reassured their loved ones that everything is going to be okay.

Of course, living with and dying of cancer isn't actually like that at all, but it's the illness that people most like to tell these stories about.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
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.


Are you suggesting that prostrate cancer is caused by employing the missionary position?

I'm unsure how in the secular Not connected with religious or spiritual matters world sin An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law can be considered to be a cause of anything - but that aside if you think sun exposure, obesity ( a condition linked to the disproportionate evolutionary success of those genetically programmed to crave sweetness and animal fat) and sexual activity are sinful then a divinity who was responsible for our involuntary performance of such sin would reasonably be where the buck stops - would it not?

You seem to overlook the role of heredity, particularly in such as breast cancer and prostate cancer where, I'm advised by specialists, one man in eight will fall prey, rising to two in eight for those with a paternal or sibling sufferer - and five in eight (odds on - more likely than not!) for those with both parental and sibling victims.
AIUI some Christians think (in effect) that their god selects the inherited genetic mix whilst others think it can't be bothered to interfere - but most (all?) think it could. Be nice if, in respect of Muscular Dystrophy, Cystic fibrosis, Glaucoma etc,, etc, it did - wouldn't it?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
@ HughWillRidMe I am not personally suggesting anything about sin, I am making an observation after doing some work on this recently.

As I said here

quote:
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 [are] 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.

As the rest of the thread continued to point out.

(And I can't remember, but I may well have copied and pasted that "prostrate" instead of "prostate" as I had double checked all that information on various sites and copied and pasted some of the lists.)
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
CK, I followed the Cancer Research link you provided on the risks of smoking. It says:
quote:
Does smoking increase cancer risk?

There is an absolutely undeniable link between smoking and many different types of cancer. Smoking causes over 8 out of 10 cases (80%) of lung cancer in the UK.

Smoking can also increase your risk of cancer of the
[list of other body parts]

Overall, about a quarter (25%) of all cancer deaths are linked to smoking. There is a lot more information about risk of cancer and smoking on the Cancer Research UK News and Resources website.

I struggle to see why you think this is "implicitly blaming cancer sufferers for their disease." Their statement would also be entirely consistent with alternate moral positions - for example, that tobacco companies are to blame. Where exactly do you see the specific implication of blaming cancer sufferers?

I'm assuming that you don't dispute the factual assertion that exposure to concentrated tobacco smoke does, in fact, increase the risk of cancer, and that you agree that it's a proper function of Cancer Research to study and report the causes of cancer. If so, can you suggest how this statement could be re-written to avoid the implication you see?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Don't kill Curiosity, she's just the messenger.

It's not only the Christian idea of cancer being theconsequence of sin. I know some atheists who, while renouncing all Christianity as silly superstition, firmly believe that cancer is the result of bad karma. In short, only mean spirited people get it. This makes me furious.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Some New Age groups seem to have that view, or something similar. Bad thoughts lead to sickness, so make your thoughts good ones, and you will be well. Nonsense.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
@ DaveW - here I quoted directly from the Cancer Research site, as below - the urls to the links are embedded.

quote:
Smoking causes over 8 out of 10 cases (80%) of lung cancer in the UK.
quote:
Every year, alcohol causes 4% of cancers in the UK, around 12,500 cases.
I also said there that I was surprised that the Cancer Research site so explicitly said that cancers were caused by alcohol and smoking in those links.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@ DaveW - here I quoted directly from the Cancer Research site, as below - the urls to the links are embedded.

quote:
Smoking causes over 8 out of 10 cases (80%) of lung cancer in the UK.
quote:
Every year, alcohol causes 4% of cancers in the UK, around 12,500 cases.

Well, yes, I know what they say - as I said before, I followed your links. In fact, I even reproduced the lung cancer quote in my own post.

But I am still entirely mystified as to how you see these statements as "implicitly blaming cancer sufferers for their disease". (Again, I think one could say the same thing if one thought tobacco companies were entirely to blame and smokers entirely innocent.)
quote:
I also said there that I was surprised that the Cancer Research site so explicitly said that cancers were caused by alcohol and smoking in those links.

Yes, and I still find that entirely incomprehensible. (Not that I think smokers deserve lung cancer as the wages of sin - I simply can't see why you think CR is implying that.)

At the risk of seeming annoyingly repetitive (and recognizing you needn't feel any obligation to enlighten me) I invite your attention to the last part of what I wrote before:

"I'm assuming that you don't dispute the factual assertion that exposure to concentrated tobacco smoke does, in fact, increase the risk of cancer, and that you agree that it's a proper function of Cancer Research to study and report the causes of cancer. If so, can you suggest how this statement could be re-written to avoid the implication you see?"

If you don't mind answering this, I really think it might help me understand your position.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Because the current healthy lifestyles curriculum in the UK is all about avoiding cancer risk (and heart disease) One of the questions to be answered with an essay is about lifestyle choices leading to heart disease and cancer. And the human biology bit of the science curriculum is all about eating healthily and exercising to avoid cancer, heart disease and diabetes. As are all the public health messages.

The overriding message coming across is that we need to eat sensibly, avoid the sun, stop smoking and drinking, avoid risky sex and exercise to avoid getting cancer. And it is drummed into us in the UK. So when someone gets cancer the immediate thought is "what unhealthy life choices did they make?" even if you then override it.

And both orfeo, in Australia, and Adeodatus, a hospital chaplain in the UK, agreed that cancer sufferers have to deal with that implicit accusation or feel guilty for having cancer.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

The overriding message coming across is that we need to eat sensibly, avoid the sun, stop smoking and drinking, avoid risky sex and exercise to avoid getting cancer. And it is drummed into us in the UK. So when someone gets cancer the immediate thought is "what unhealthy life choices did they make?" even if you then override it.


To make it all worse, that long list of things to do and not do to avoid cancer gets more complicated all the time. We should avoid the sun to prevent skin cancer but we need more sun to prevent breast and colorectal cancer. We should eat lots of fruits and vegetables but, unless we can buy organic, we need to avoid many of them because of the toxic level of insecticides. We should eat fat, but only the ones with the right molecular chain. Women should avoid risky sex but try to have a few babies.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
CK - Would you prefer that Cancer Research stop researching the causes of cancer? (That would probably save some money.) Or simply stop publicizing the results of their research?

Is there any way to communicate this fact:
quote:
Smoking causes over 8 out of 10 cases (80%) of lung cancer in the UK.
without "blaming cancer sufferers" (as you put it)?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Dave W. - I am not blaming cancer sufferers. I am just responding to the OP, where Qoheleth asked about a theology of cancer. In his OP he rejected the idea of sin causing sickness, which has been seen in some churches over the years. I pointed out that even if churches refrained from blaming cancer sufferers, there was an implicit message from the secular information on cancer that lifestyle choices caused cancer. And that maybe the message from charities such as Cancer Research was effectively saying that sin (as in unhealthy lifestyle) causes (or has a strong link to) cancer.

I suspect society's mixed messages are more to do with a belief that science can and should fix everything, including death, and that cancer is fixable if you avoid all risk factors. Personally, I would say that we have to die sometime, and having removed a number of diseases by vaccination and bacterial infections through antibiotics, we are now more likely to die of cancer, heart disease or diabetes - the so called lifestyle illnesses. But at a much older age than we would have died of cholera or typhoid.

Maybe it's to do with death being the taboo of the 21st Century (and 20th) when sex was the taboo of the Victorian age.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And that maybe the message from charities such as Cancer Research was effectively saying that sin (as in unhealthy lifestyle) causes (or has a strong link to) cancer.

But it's true that some behavior has a strong link with cancer. What else could they possibly say? (And if you or other people equate smoking with sin, that's entirely up to you - CR isn't saying that.)

I think it's great that CR is telling people about the link between smoking and lung cancer, and I think it's very odd that you're "surprised" that they're doing this.

I imagine that people who smoke and get lung cancer may well feel somewhat worse knowing that their own behavior probably caused it. But I also think that just getting lung cancer is bad enough that "Don't tell anybody what causes it!" can't be a reasonable policy for an organization called Cancer Research.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I am not surprised that Cancer Research is linking risk factors to cancer. I am surprised that they are stating that 4% of cancers are caused by alcohol consumption, less surprised that they are stating 80% of lung cancers are caused* by smoking.

The OP says:
quote:
I take it that we've moved away from sinful sickness.
All I was doing was pointing out the fact that secular charities are linking behaviours with cancer risks. Which rather seems to negate a breaking of a link of illness with sin or behaviours.

And that's all I have said, but I feel as if I have had to spend this entire thread defending that comment, to different people with radically different points of view.

* it's the statement of causation rather than increased risks that surprises me.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
I wasn't going to get involved in this, but perhaps one pointed comment wouldn't hurt. Of bloody course many cancers are our own damn fault. Not all, but certainly many. Twenty three years ago, back when I was immortal and loved to get a heavy tan, was it anyone else's fault - God, the devil or my in-laws on whose boat I was sailing shirtless - that my back was burnt to the point that it blistered? Whose fault was it that I ended up with melanoma that has probably cost the health system hundreds of thousands of dollars? I did it all myself. If that was a sin, then I confess it.

[ 19. July 2014, 14:23: Message edited by: Stercus Tauri ]
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I am not surprised that Cancer Research is linking risk factors to cancer. I am surprised that they are stating that 4% of cancers are caused by alcohol consumption, less surprised that they are stating 80% of lung cancers are caused* by smoking.

The OP says:
quote:
I take it that we've moved away from sinful sickness.
All I was doing was pointing out the fact that secular charities are linking behaviours with cancer risks. Which rather seems to negate a breaking of a link of illness with sin or behaviours.
They're certainly not breaking a link of illness with behaviors. Why would they? There is a link.

You seem to think it's impossible to discuss a link between behavior and illness without implying that the behavior is sinful. But there's nothing in the CR statements themselves that implies those behaviors are "sinful" and I think its wrong to use them as examples of "implicitly blaming cancer sufferers for their disease."
quote:
* it's the statement of causation rather than increased risks that surprises me.

But why not causation? They've got statistics from careful observation and an explanatory biological mechanism, so what more do they need before they say "smoking causes 80% of lung cancers"?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Because I don't think that cancer is linked to lifestyle choices as directly as cause and effect, there are other mechanisms at work.

Because this thread was opened to ask how to support someone who was dealing with the devastation of cancer.

Because I've watched too many people die of cancer and I don't particularly want to start pointing fingers at them and blaming them for their own deaths, particularly when the cancers involved don't have recognised direct links. Emotionally that is too devastating.

And now, I'm out of here. Too raw, too painful and not a discussion I'm continuing.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Linking cancer to lifestyle choices is not the same as linking cancer to sin. However, I'd be the first to agree that some of the advertising and media coverage of cancer risk factors is unhelpfully guilt-laden, and it's something that often comes up in chaplains' dealings with people with cancer.

The problem goes like this - yes, you smoked; yes, it causes cancer; yes, you've got it. But what are we going to do with that? Bang on and on about it so that "it's all my own fault" becomes just one more of the many things that are suddenly crap in your life? No: we try to help this person see that today is day zero, and from today, with or without cancer, they have a life to live.
 
Posted by 3M Matt (# 1675) on :
 
As said earlier, I can't see anything that particularly marks Cancer out against any other form of biological illness.

Or indeed, against a wider sphere of psychological illness...

Or, come to that, any other kind of suffering at all. It's all the same question phrased different ways surely?
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0